AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Medical expenses,"Rs. 36,800/-
Pain & Sufferings & Enjoyment of
Life","Rs. 2,00,000/-
Special Diet and Conveyance,"Rs. 30,000/-
Attendant        &        Future Attendant Charges,"Rs. 9,15,000/-
Loss of amenities,"Rs. 2,00,000/-
Loss of life expectancy,"Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of income/future incomeÂ,"Rs.28,80,000/-
                                 Â
Total","Rs.
43,61,800/-
only with his left hand. Due to disability, he has low average intelligence. He needs full time attendant. He has severe difficulty in working. He has",
difficulty in self care, interpersonal activities, communication and understanding and work also.â€",
The Injured was running an Electrical shop and as per the evidence of his wife, he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and that the Injured had",
studied in Senior Secondary School. No documentary proof regarding the income of Injured had been placed on record. It has come in the evidence,
that Injured is not in a position to run the shop and was not an Income Tax Payee, but the said shop was in a commercial space. While taking into",
account the ground realities, the Income of Injured had been rightly assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month. On the day of the accident, the Injured was",
aged 32 years and so, the applicable multiplier is of 16. The “loss of earning capacity†has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal.Â",
So far as “attendant charges†are concerned, I find that the Tribunal has assessed the “attendant chargesâ€while taking into account the",
ground realities. It was difficult to hire an attendant at a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month in the year 2012, but still the Tribunal has assessed the",
“attendant charges†on the aforesaid salary, which cannot be said to be exorbitant. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under other heads",
is also found to be reasonable. No case for reduction in the quantum of compensation, as determined by the Tribunal, is made out.",
On the liability aspect, I find that the Tribunal has erred in granting recovery rights to Insurer by holding that the Permit for plying the bus in",
question was not valid. A bare perusal of Sections 70, 72 and 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 120 of the Haryana Motor Vehicles",
Rules, 1993 reveals that the registration number of a vehicle in not required to be mentioned in the Permit. Only the route is required to be spelt out.",
This Court is of the considered opinion that the plea regarding the Permit is a legal plea and it can be taken even at the appellate stage. Since the,
Permit (R3W1/2) in respect of the bus in question has been found to be valid by this Court, therefore, impugned Award to the extent it grants recovery",
rights to Insurer, is hereby set aside. The liability to pay the awarded compensation is of Insurer and not of the owner of insured bus in question.",
Consequentially, the quantum of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, is maintained and the liability to pay the awarded amount is put on the",
Insurer. The awarding of penal interest of 12% by the Tribunal is waived.Â,
While entertaining the appeal by Insurer, it was directed that the entire awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum be deposited by the",
Insurer with the Tribunal. If it is not already done, the Insurer shall ensure that it is now done within a period of four weeks from today. The awarded",
compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum be disbursed forthwith to Injured in the manner already indicated in the impugned Award.Â,
Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurer.Â",
These appeals are accordingly disposed of while modifying the impugned Award in aforesaid terms.,