Sanjay Gupta vs Amit Singh and Another

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—This civil first miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.3.2012 passed by

Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in claim petition titled as Sanjay Gupta v. Amit Singh in File No. 230/C, whereby

award of Rs. 13,10,000 came to be awarded, under different heads, in favour of the claimant-appellant with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per

annum except under heads 'future loss of income' and 'future treatment expenses' from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and 50

per cent of the awarded sum was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of the appellant-claimant for a period of five years. The

appellant-claimant has filed the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeals (for short,

impugned award).

Brief facts:

On 16.7.2008 at about 6.15 p.m. when appellant-claimant was travelling on a motor cycle bearing No. JK 02-Q 6318 near Domana, the said

motor cycle was hit by a vehicle bearing No. JMU H-764 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') that was being driven in a rash and

negligent manner by its driver, respondent No. 1, and appellant sustained grievous injuries. He filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the

tune of Rs. 55,00,000 as per the break-up given in the claim petition.

The respondents were put to notice. The owner-cum-driver (respondent No. 1) denied the occurrence but has admitted the ownership of the

offending vehicle. Insurer contested the claim petition by pleading that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving

licence at the time of accident and admitted the currency of policy of insurance of the offending vehicle with it covering the period of accident.

Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(1) Whether an accident occurred on 16.7.2008 near Domana due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JMU H-764 Maruti

Wagon-R in the hands of erring driver as a result of which petitioners Muskan Gupta, Pinky Gupta and Sanjay Gupta suffered grievous injuries?

OPP

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation in each claim petition, if so, to what amount and

from whom?

OPP

(3) Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving licence, if so, what is its effect?

OPR 1

(4) Relief.

OPP

The petitioner examined himself along with other witnesses and also placed on record some documents to substantiate his claim.

The insurer has not led any evidence in rebuttal, thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained unrebutted.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. There is no dispute with

regard to findings returned by the Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 and 3. Only dispute is with regard to 'adequacy of compensation'. In view of the

findings returned and record produced, I am of the considered view that issue Nos. 1 and 3 have rightly been decided by the Tribunal in favour of

appellant-claimant and, accordingly, the same are upheld.

Only question now for consideration is as to whether the amount of compensation is 'adequate' or otherwise.

The Tribunal while assessing 'future loss of income' has fallen in error while applying the multiplier 12. The multiplier applicable as per the

principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, was 14, but having

regard to the uncertainties of life and in order to award 'just compensation', the appropriate multiplier applicable to this case was 13.

The Tribunal has also fallen in error in awarding Rs. 60,000 under the head of 'loss of amenities of life' which is too meagre. While keeping in

view the fact that the appellant has sustained permanent disability due to which it affected his earning capacity and made his life miserable and the

fact that the appellant has three grown-up daughters, I deem it proper to award Rs. 1,00,000 under the head 'loss of amenities of life'. Ordered

accordingly.

The Tribunal has also fallen in error in awarding Rs. 13,000 under the head 'future treatment charges' which is too meagre, while keeping in

view the permanent disability suffered by the claimant and doctor's statement. While applying some guesswork, I deem it proper to award Rs.

50,000 under the head 'future treatment charges'. Ordered accordingly.

While going through medical evidence and certificates on file and keeping in view the occupation of the appellant, one comes to an inescapable

conclusion that disability suffered by the petitioner has affected his earning capacity, though the Tribunal has also held that the petitioner is not in a

position to do the job of tailoring but has fallen in error in holding that disability suffered by the petitioner has affected only 58 per cent of his

earning capacity. It appears that it has affected total earning capacity but keeping in view the nature of job and the age of the claimant and also the

fact that it has shattered the physical frame of petitioner, I deem it proper to hold that disability has affected 70 per cent of his earning capacity.

Thus, the annual loss of income of the appellant is Rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000. Applying multiplier 13, the future loss of income of the appellant is

Rs. 60,000 x 13 = Rs. 7,80,000.

The compensation awarded under the heads 'pain and suffering', 'medical expenses', 'attendant/transport charges' and 'special diet charges' is

reasonable and thus needs no interference.

Thus, in total, appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation as under:

Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 15,82,000 (including interim compensation already granted) is awarded as compensation in favour of appellant-

claimant. The awarded amount under the heads 'future loss of income' and 'future treatment expenses' shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent

per annum from the date of impugned award dated 26.3.2012 and the rest of the amount under other heads, from the date of claim application till

its realization. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and awarded amount is enhanced to the extent as indicated above.

Amount of compensation deposited be released in favour of the appellant-claimant after his proper identification and verification strictly in

terms of the impugned award. The court-fee shall be the first charge. The insurer-respondent to deposit balance amount within two months from

today.

Registry to send down the records along with copy of this order. Disposed of along with connected CMA(s), if any.