FAO No.1233 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1233 of 1998 Date of Decision.27.10.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager ......Appellant Versus Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Raj Mohan Suri, Advocate for the respondents. 2. FAO No.1854 of 1998 Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, resident of village Raipur Rani, Tehsil and District Panckhula ......Appellant Versus Tarlochan Singh son of Sh. Mohan Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Raj Mohan Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) FAO No.1233 of 1998 -2- 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident. FAO No.1233 of 1998 is filed at the instance of the insurance company on the issue of quantum and FAO No.1854 of 1998 is filed at the instance of the injured claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. The insurance company did not have the benefit of evidence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to challenge the issue of quantum. An application has been filed at the appellate stage seeking for such permission. I shall not accede to such permission but shall take up the issue of compensation in so far as it is relevant at the instance of the claimant to examine whether there is any justification for its enhancement. 3. The injured lost both his legs when he had kept them out of the bus in which he was travelling and that a truck that was passing through clipped off both his legs. The Tribunal had examined the case relating to contributory negligence with enormous care and with reference to several decisions both of Indian and English regimes and had examined that the drivers must have more careful to ensure that there was sufficient distance between both vehicles to keep safety of any passengers travelling in the vehicles especially of even those persons who could be putting any part of the body outside. I affirm the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal and will hold that no part of the claim shall suffer any abatement for contributory negligence. The Tribunal had held both the vehicles to be responsible for the accident and apportioned the liability amongst the insurers of both the vehicles. Even on the issue of apportionment I will make no modification. FAO No.1233 of 1998 -3- 4. Injured person was 23 years of age and having been employed in the Army was drawing a salary of Rs.3788/-. The Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 17 and determined the compensation at Rs.11,07,750/- that included Rs.2,40,000/- for attendant charges throughout his life of 40 years and Rs.45,000/- towards future medical care and expenses and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities of life. The Tribunal has not been provided for any prospect of future increase. I will provide 50% over the present income as the increase that will be Rs.1894/- and take the annual loss at Rs.68184, adopt the same multiplier and the amount of loss that could be ascertained is Rs.11,59,128/-. I will retain the provision for future medical expenses and care at Rs.45,000/- as determined by the Tribunal and also retain Rs.50,000/- which is determined for loss of amenities of life. I will add another Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. As regards the provision, which the Tribunal has made for attendant charges @Rs.500/- per month, the mistake committed by the Tribunal was to take the annual expenses of about Rs.6,000/- and multiplying by 40 for 40 years. The Tribunal did not factor the lump sum payment as obtaining through this method of calculation and suitably it should have reduced the multiplier so that the amount that is determined if used as corpus yields a monthly return of Rs.500/-. This will be secured by taking the very same multiplier as adopted for his loss of earning. I will adopt a multiplier of 17 to an yearly expense of Rs.6,000/- and take Rs.1,02,000/- as the likely expenses and provide for Rs.1,02,000/- as the amount necessary for payment of attendant FAO No.1233 of 1998 -4- charges towards his life. In all, the amount that will become payable would be Rs.14,06,128/-. The amount in excess of over what has been previously determined by the Tribunal shall attract interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 5. The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement is allowed in the above fashion. The Tribunal has already directed that out of the amount of Rs.11,07,750/-, an amount of Rs.9,07,750/- would be invested in a long term deposit for a period of 7 years and now the time has expired the said amount would have become payable. I would however direct that the additional sum over what has already been awarded shall be retained in fixed deposit of 10 years and the claimant would have the benefit of interest alone for the amount determined in excess paid on quarterly basis. The principal will be returned after the expiry of 10 years. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 27, 2010 Pankaj*