FAO No.983 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO No.983 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 09.11.2009 Indu Salwan and others ...... Appellants VERSUS Head Constable Jai Bhagwan No.88009014 Border Security Force, 25 Btn. Chawla Camp and others ...... Respondents (ii) FAO No.24 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 09.11.2009 Indu Salwan ...... Appellant VERSUS Head Constable Jai Bhagwan No.88009014 Border Security Force, 25 Btn. Chawla Camp and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.S.K.Sharma, Standing counsel for Union of India. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This order of mine shall dispose of aforesaid two appeals i.e. F.A.O.Nos.983 and 24 of 2009 against the award dated 02.06.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,17,956/- on account of the death of Rajiv Salwan husband of the appellant-claimant (herein referred as 'the claimant') in M.A.C.T. Case No.146 of 2006 and Rs.94391/- on account of the injuries suffered by claimant Indu Salwan herself alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondents jointly and severally. Neither the negligence nor the liability has been disputed by the respondents. However, the claimants have sought enhancement of compensation in M.A.C.T. Case No.146 of 2006 on the grounds that Tribunal while assessing the compensation incorrectly applied the multiplier of 11 in place of 15 to be applied in such a case. Reliance has been placed FAO No.983 of 2009(O&M) 2 over the judgment delivered in case Smt.Sarla Verma and others appellants vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another respondents 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77. The other argument is that no conveyance charges were awarded. It is noticed that the deceased was a vegetable seller as such his income has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal @ Rs.3500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his dependency, the net dependency was assessed. However, the Tribunal fell in error while applying the multiplier of 11 in this case. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), the appropriate multiplier to be applied should have been 15 and not 11 as in the present case. As regards the conveyance charges, the Tribunal should have awarded some amount on this head. As such, Rs.20,000/- are awarded and, while applying 15, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- over and above the award amount. In M.A.C.T. Case No.145 of 2006, claimant Indu Salwan sought enhancement of compensation on the grounds that she suffered 10% disability of the left humerus and left ulna and her left arm had completely crushed in the accident. The Tribunal also did not award anything on account of special diet, attendant transportation and future treatment/operation. In order to see the gravity of the injuries, statement of Dr.Vijay Mittal, Medical Officer, Aryan Hospital, Gurgaon needs to be reiterated, who disclosed that claimant suffered fracture left humerus with fracture of left ulna and she remained indoor patient from 15.07.2006 to 23.07.2006. She was operated upon and a plate was inserted in her left arm and a nail was inserted in left forearm. He also deposed that she would also require another operation for removal of the nail and for that expenses of Rs.10-15 thousands would be needed. That apart Dr.Subhash Sindu, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Gurgaon, who was one of the members of the Board, deposed that at the time of examination, the Medical Board found her disability to the extent of 10% on account of traumatic fracture left humerus and left ulna operated case with mild restriction of left elbow movements. The Tribunal awarded compensation for the pain and sufferings, medicines, treatment and future treatment and disability, as under:- FAO No.983 of 2009(O&M) 3 1. Compensation for pain & sufferings : Rs.10,000/- 2. Compensation for expenses for : Rs.57,931/- purchase of medicines and treatment (42391 + 15000) and future expenses for treatment etc. : 3. Compensation for adverse effect on : Rs.20,000/- the life due to disability to the extent of 10%. 4. Compensation for expenses on special : Rs.7,000/- diet, attendant and conveyance and to meet unforeseen expenses. -------------------------------- Rs.94,391/- ---------------------------------- It appears that the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of future treatment and nothing has been awarded for the operation she had undergone and still she is to undergo operation for removal of the nail and the plate inserted in the arm. It may also be mentioned that the Tribunal did not appropriately awarded compensation on account of special diet, attendant and conveyance. This meagre sum of Rs.7,000/- awarded on the aforesaid heads appears to be just without application of mind. As such, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000 (Rs.10,000/- on account of future operation, Rs.10,000/- on account of conveyance charges and Rs.10,000/- for expenses on account of attendant and special diet). Resultantly, both the appeals are partly accepted and the impugned award is modified by enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- in M.A.C.T. Case No.146 of 23.12.2006 and Rs.30,000/- in M.A.C.T. Case No.24 of 2009 over and above the award amount. However, the claimants would also be entitled to receive the interest on the enhanced amount at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The remaining terms of the award passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. No order as to costs. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 09.11.2009 mamta-II