Ramesh vs Karan Singh

Ramesh ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Karan Singh & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. The application for deleting the name of respondent No. 2

herein is allowed at the risk and responsibility of the

appellant herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 83

of 2002, by which, the High Court has partly allowed the

said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – injured –

Signature Not Verified claimant and has enhanced the amount of compensation Digitally signed by SNEHA Date: 2022.09.16 15:18:42 IST Reason: to Rs. 14,82,000/­ only, the original claimant has

preferred the present appeal.

1

3. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 02.01.1997, the

appellant – original claimant sustained multiple injuries.

There was an amputation of right upper limb below elbow

at upper l/3rd of fore­arm. During the prolonged

hospitalization, the injured – claimant was required to

undergo five operations. At the time of accident, the

appellant was getting USD 1000 as a salary in Merchant

Navy where he was employed at Belgium excluding free

food, accommodation, and free air ticket. The appellant

approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short

“Tribunal”) claiming Rs. 1,02,00,000/­ for compensation

under different heads. The Tribunal awarded a total sum

of Rs. 6,68,000/­ under different heads including the

expenses covering medicine, treatment, special diet, pain,

shock and suffering and future loss of income. While

awarding future economic loss, the Tribunal determined

and considered the income of the injured at Rs. 3,500/­

per month. In the appeal preferred by the claimant, by the

impugned judgment and order the High Court has

enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.

6,68,000/­ to Rs. 14,82,000/­. While awarding future

2 economic loss, the High Court has though considered the

income of the injured at Rs. 36,000/­ per month in

Merchant Navy, Belgium, but has actually considered the

loss of income at 50% of the same on the ground that in

Merchant Navy, usually the job is for six months in a year

and that as per the medical evidence, the injuries have

resulted in 70% disability qua right arm. The High Court

has awarded Rs. 25,000/­ towards pain and suffering and

Rs. 10,000/­ for special diet and Rs. 5,000/­ for

transportation. Thus, the High Court has determined and

awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,82,000/­ towards

compensation along with 7.5% per annum interest from

the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order passed by the High Court in determining and

awarding only Rs. 14,82,000/­ towards compensation, the

original claimant – injured has preferred the present

appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

3

5. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court

while awarding the future economic loss has considered

the loss of income at Rs. 18,000/­ per month. However, it

is required to be noted that the appellant was serving as

Merchant Navy and his salary at the relevant time was

USD 1000. His right hand below elbow was amputated

resulting in 70% disability qua right arm. The High Court

has observed that the claimant can still earn something.

However, it is required to be noted that the claimant will

not be able to do any work in Merchant Navy. The High

Court also observed that in Merchant Navy, usually the job

is for six months in a year. The said observation is

absolutely without any basis. No evidence is led on behalf

of the respondents on the aforesaid. It cannot be said that

the claimant would do nothing for rest of six months. The

High Court has also not considered the future rise in

income. Under the circumstances and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have

awarded the future economic loss considering the loss of

income at least at Rs. 30,000/­ per month. Therefore, the

total loss comes to Rs. 57,60,000/­ (30000x12x16).

4 5.1 The High Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/­ only towards

pain, shock, and suffering. However, it is required to be

noted that the right hand below elbow of the claimant was

amputated. During prolonged hospitalization, he was

operated five times. Looking to the serious injuries, the

claimant was required to be shifted to Medical College and

Hospital at Rohtak and thereafter to Jaipur Golden

Hospital, New Delhi, where he was remained admitted

from 03.01.1997 to 21.01.1997. Therefore, considering the

five operations, prolonged hospitalization, and suffering,

we are of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000/­

awarded by the High Court under the head of pain, shock,

and suffering can be said to be on a lower side. In the facts

and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, we

are of the opinion that the claimant shall be entitled to at

least Rs. 4,00,000/­ towards pain, shock, and suffering.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court is to be modified accordingly.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court is modified and it is

5 ordered that the appellant herein – injured – claimant shall

be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 62,35,000/­ with 7.5%

interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till realization.

7. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid

extent. The enhanced amount of compensation is to be

deposited by the respondents with the learned Tribunal

within a period of eight weeks from today and on such

deposit the same be paid to the original claimant –

appellant herein by account payee cheque. No costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 [KRISHNA MURARI]

6