Surjeet Singh vs Kuldeep Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation. The claimant filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 25.01.2011. For the injuries suffered by the claimant and the permanent disability which resulted therefrom, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,87,600/- to the claimant vide the impugned award. Having met with an accident on 29.05.2009, the claimant suffered multiple and grievous injuries including fractures to his left leg and left arm. He was taken to Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt. where he remained admitted as an indoor patient upto 16.6.2009. His left leg below knee joint was amputated during the treatment. The claimant spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in his treatment including purchase of medicines, special diet, transportation, attendants etc. He has claimed that he was still under treatment and some amount was likely to be spent in his follow-up treatment. He has further submitted that he has been retired from Army and was working as a security person with Hindustan Petrol Pump, Ambala Cantt. and was getting Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary. He has also claimed that he has become permanently disabled.

The aforesaid pleadings of the claimant have been denied by the respondents. They have even denied the accident to have occurred on account of any rash or negligent driving on their part.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant had examined Mangat Ram Sharma, Chief Accounts Assistant of the office of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as PW-3 who had stated that the claimant was getting Rs. 5160/- as monthly salary for his work. According to him, there was no reason for not taking the same as the income of the claimant and for taking his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month only by learned Tribunal. He has further submitted that though, the medical expenses were not incurred by the claimant, yet he had spent towards special diet, transportation charges, attendants charges etc. According to him, by the loss of left leg below knee joint and the disability being 60%, he has lost much on future enjoyment of life. He has further submitted that having suffered this disability at a comparatively young age, the claimant will be losing much on future enjoyment of life and the amount assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 20,000/- is on lower side.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that adequate amount has been assessed by the Tribunal as compensation in favour of the claimant. According to him, no further amount is required to be awarded to the claimant because the compensation already awarded is more than adequate.

It is a case where the Tribunal has assessed compensation for loss of future income on account of the disability by adopting the multiplier system. However, he has taken the multiplier of 11 to assess the compensation which to my mind should be of 13. Assessing compensation at 60% of the income of the appellant taken by the Tribunal, the loss of future income to the appellant would come to Rs. 2,80,800/-. I find that compensation for loss of future enjoyment of life at Rs. 20,000/- is on lower side and it needs to be revised to Rs. 30,000/-. So, adding the amounts of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation charges, special diet and attendant and Rs. 30,000/- for loss of future enjoyment of life, I find a sum of Rs. 3,40,800/- as compensation payable to the appellant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals succeeds and is allowed. The amount of Rs. 2,87,600/- assessed by the Tribunal as compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced to Rs. 3,40,800/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.