In FAO-4718-2015 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Appellant has restricted movement of complete right arm with loss of strength of hand, says P&H HC while enhancing compensation in motor accident case
Justice Nidhi Gupta [15-03-2023]

Read Order: SURENDER VS. RAVINDER @ TONI & OTHERS

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, March 16, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a  case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by enhancing future, medical and certain other expenses.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Nidhi Gupta partly allowed the present appeal by granting interest @ 7% on enhanced compensation from date of filing the petition till realization.

The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that claimant/appellant had received injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 05.11.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Safari ) being driven and owned by the first  respondent  and insured by the second respondent. 

The Tribunal had awarded compensation as noted above along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its actual realization. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants instituted the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that the employment of the appellant as driver with the seventh prosecution witness cannot be held to have been proved satisfactorily/sufficiently. 

As per the Bench, the Tribunal correctly assessed notional income of the appellant as Rs 5, 200 per month on the basis of Minimum Wage notification dated February 2, 2012. 

The Court also stated that the appellant was 39 years of age at the time of accident, and claimed to hold a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Goods Vehicle, Medium Passenger Motor Vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle. It was therefore plausible that the appellant would be in regular employment as a driver even prior to May, 2011. 

However, the Bench noted that no such averment was made, and even no such record was produced. Even employment of appellant as a driver with the seventh prosecution witness, Shriom remained unproven.

In these circumstances, the Bench opined that it cannot be stated that the injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident in question have permanently incapacitated him from doing the work which he was capable of doing as employment of the appellant as a driver remains unproven on record, the Court opined. 

Further the court noted that  in view of 70% disability suffered by the appellant, the Tribunal  by placing  reliance upon judgment of this Court in Ram Kiran Goyal Vs. Sub Divisional Engineer, Mechanical  granted Rs.2,000  per percent of disability/a total of Rs. 1,40,000/- towards permanent disability. The Court found  the same to be in accordance with law.

At the same, the Court though also noted that admittedly, the appellant had remained hospitalized in various hospitals and had undergone four operations including affixation of rod and implants in his right shoulder. Also there was complete restriction in movement of the complete right arm with loss of strength of hand of the appellant, the Court noted. 

Therefore, in  view of this Court, the  future medical expenses were  enhanced from Rs 10,000 to Rs.50,000; special diet was  enhanced from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000; attendant charges were  enhanced from Rs.3,000 to Rs.10,000; transportation charges which were not granted by the Tribunal were granted to the tune of Rs.20,000 . 

Hence, in view of such observations, the appeal was partly allowed.