Jagdish Kumar vs State of Haryana and Another

Lisa Gill, J.—This matter had been placed before the Lok Adalat and the same has been sent back with the observation that there is no likelihood of the matter being settled by way of compromise as respondent No. 1 - State of Haryana has also filed an appeal against the same impugned award dated 08.01.1993.

The appellant claims enhancement of the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as, the ''Tribunal'') on account of the injuries suffered by him in an accident which occurred 19.09.1990. The bus in which the appellant was travelling was hit by another bus of Haryana Roadways bearing registration No. HNR-4415 being driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant received serious injuries including compound fracture of bones of both legs. The permanent disability suffered by the appellant was stated to be 45% as per the Certificate given by PW2 Dr. Rajinder Pal Singh Mann.

The appellant was 27 years of age at the time of accident and claims to be working as a labourer earning a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for medical expenses, charges of conveyance and money spent on special diet; Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- on account of permanent disability i.e. a total amount of Rs. 50,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the claimant is entitled to a much higher compensation inasmuch as nothing has been awarded on account of loss of earning capacity/future prospects and that the Tribunal has wrongly disbelieved the medical evidence on account of the certificate having been issued by a private Doctor and not by a medical board of doctors of Civil Hospital, Ambala.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the facts of the case it is seen that it has been observed by the Tribunal itself that even at the time of examination of the appellant in court in the year 1992, the claimant could walk only with the help of a stick. It has been observed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company, that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. It has further been observed that while determining the disability of the claimants in motor accidents cases, this Court might be sensitive about the functional disability involved and nature of occupation, particularly, if the occupation involves manual labour.

In the present case, the claimant is admittedly a labourer and the functional disability of the appellant is taken at 35%. Keeping in view the nature of his occupation, the increment on his future income is assessed at 50% and considering the age of the appellant, i.e., 27 years and applying the principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, upheld in the judgment of Sayed Sadiq''s case (supra), a multiplier of 17 is applicable. Therefore, under the head of loss of future income, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,07,100/- (1000 x 35/100 + 50/100 x 35/100 x 1000 x 12 x 17).

The amount awarded on account of permanent disability is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- and that on account of pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- from Rs. 10,000/-. The amount awarded on account of medical expenses, conveyance charges, special diet etc. is maintained at Rs. 15,000/-.

The total amount payable to the appellant comes to Rs. 2,02,100/- (1,07,100+50,000+30,000+15,000) with interest on the amount in excess of what has already been paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The compensation amount is to be paid by respondent No. 1 as has been held by the Tribunal.

The FAO No. 894 of 1993 filed by the State of Haryana has been dismissed in default vide separate order of even date.

Disposed of accordingly.