F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 2nd,2011 Manoj Gautam .... Appellant Versus Surjit Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Ms. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to him in a sum of ` 4,00,000/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 6.5.2010. The claim made by the appellant-claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for compensation in a sum of ` 50,00,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road side accident that took place on 12.9.2006 is as under: F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 2 .. The claimant was going to his house situated in South City, Ludhiana on 12.9.2006 riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-10-AZ-4394 after doing his work at Pindi Street, Ludhiana. When he was in front of the Bitumen plant, near Dairy Complex, Haibowal, Ludhiana, Surjit Singh, respondent No.1, came driving truck bearing registration No.TN- 22-Z-569 from his back side and struck his motorcycle at its back side. As a consequence thereof, he fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries on his face, right leg, right arm and head. He was taken to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana by one Manjit Saini, who was passing by that place at that time, where he remained admitted from 12.9.2006 to 21.9.2006. He took treatment from Paras Hospital, Gurgaon, Max Hospital, New Delhi and had also undergone physiotherapy with various institutions. He had spent `4,00,000/- on his treatment. He has claimed that his treatment was still going on. He has further claimed that he was 33 years old at the time of accident and was working as a Medical Representative. According to him, he was earning `18,000/- per month at that time, out of which, a sum of `10,000/- had been his salary received from his employer and another sum of `8,000/- had been his commission/incentive. He has claimed that his income has been totally lost and his efficiency to do work has been considerably reduced. Respondent no.1 has denied the maintainability of the F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 3 .. claim petition and has claimed the accident to have taken place due to negligence of the claimant himself. According to him, for this reason, he is not entitled to any compensation. It is further averred that the motorcycle had struck against the truck while it was taking turn through divider while coming from the bitumen plant. According to him, the FIR had been falsely registered against him. The truck belonged to Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, respondent No.2, who has also questioned the maintainability of the claim petition and has also tried to shift the responsibility for the accident to the claimant. The amount of compensation claimed in a sum of ` 50,00,000/- is said to be highly exaggerated. It is admitted that the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. Denying its liability to pay compensation, the petition is prayed to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1).Whether Manoj Gautam claimant received injuries in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of tipper No. TN-22-Z-569 by Surjit Singh respondent no.1? OPP 2).Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation from the respondent? If so, how much and from which of the respondents? OPP 3).Relief Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal awarded F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 4 .. compensation in a sum of ` 4,00,000/- to the claimant vide the impugned award. Since the claimant is not satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation, he has brought this appeal. I have heard Ms. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Harish Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Samarth Sagar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had suffered disability to the tune of 50% and learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount as compensation for loss of his future income and future enjoyment of life on account of the disability. According to her, learned Tribunal has not disbelieved the evidence led by the claimant about this disability. According to her, learned Tribunal had even gone to the extent of deducting a sum of ` 2242/- from the amount proved as spent on treatment and medicines in the name of making it a round figure. She has further submitted that the amount spent by the claimant on his treatment was exceeding ` 4,00,000/-, but the amount which he could prove on the record was not even awarded as compensation in the name of making it a round figure. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant remained out of job for a period of six months. F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 5 .. According to her, during that period, he has lost his entire salary. According to her, he was required to be awarded adequate compensation for loss of salary during the said period of treatment. She has further submitted that he underwent four operations and the amount of ` 50,000/- towards pain and suffering is also not adequate. According to her, the amount awarded on transportation in a sum of ` 10,000/- is quite meagre because he had to hire the services of a driver and had to pay him a lot of money. She has further submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the claimant at ` 10,000/-. According to her, the incentives received by the appellant as Medical Representative were also part of his salary and they should have been taken into account to assess the compensation. She has further submitted that the amount awarded as compensation is highly inadequate. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the disability has not affected the future prospects of income of the appellant. According to them, the claimant suffered injuries on 12.9.2006 and as per his own admission, made while appearing as AW1 before the Tribunal, he rejoined the company and started the field job by the end of December, 2006. According to them, this statement of the claimant clearly shows that he was not out of job for six months and that he had not worked only for three and a half months. They have further submitted that the income of the appellant has increased after F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 6 .. the accident. They have again referred me to the statement of the appellant, Manoj Gautam (AW1), who had admitted that after the accident, he is getting ` 11,000/- per month as salary which was ` 10,000/- before the accident. According to them, if he is doing the field job, then he must be earning the incentives also as usual and, therefore, there is no loss of future income at all on account of the alleged physical disability. They have further submitted that some amount here or there may be increased in case of special diet or attendant charges. According to him, no huge enhancement is deserved by the appellant. It is a case where the claimant suffered various injuries and he had proved his hospitalization at various hospitals. He has further proved that after the physiotherapy, his right leg is working as normal. Despite all this, I have no reason to disbelieve the claimant suffering disability to the extent of 50%. In case of permanent disability, compensation can be awarded under two heads. The first is loss of future income on account of the permanent disability and the second is loss of future enjoyment of life on account of the said disability. It is a case where after remaining out of work for about three and a half months, the claimant joined his company by the end of December, 2006. It is also his admission that he started getting salary with increase, which may be normal increase because his salary was ` 10,000/- and it is ` 11,000/- per month after the F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 7 .. accident. He does not seem to have got some premium for his disability in the job. However, he has lost nothing so far as his future income is concerned on account of this disability. He is working to the same extent. Therefore, the disability in this case does not appear to be functional disability and he is not entitled to compensation for loss of future income on account of the disability. What he may be entitled in the name of loss of income is the loss of income during the period he remained away from his job. Learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly not allowed any amount in the name of loss of future income due to the disability. For these reasons, it, however, cannot be said that he is not entitled to any compensation for loss of future enjoyment of life. He suffered the accident at the age of 33 years and he has long life before him. With 50% disability, he may be able to move on his scooter or in his car and do his work of Medical Representative to earn the said amount but this disability would certainly come in his way in the enjoyment of life. Keeping in view the age at which the appellant suffered the injuries and the percentage of disability, I am of the view that an amount of `1,00,000/- is the amount that can be awarded to him as compensation for loss of future enjoyment of life. The medical expenses were proved by the appellant in a sum of ` 3,02,242/-. In the name of making it a round figure, the Tribunal has reduced the amount to ` 3,00,000/-. Had the F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 8 .. Tribunal enhanced the amount to some extent in the name of making it a round figure, it would have been justified. Learned Tribunal is, however, not justified in reducing the amount in the name of making it a round figure. It is common knowledge that not only a layman but a very educated person also fails to collect all the bills for the expenses incurred in his treatment. At least in the beginning, the people attending to the injured do not have time to look to the aspect of collecting the bills. So, in the name of making it a round figure, some amount should have been added to the amount proved as spent in the treatment. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to ` 3,20,000/- as medical expenses. Coming to the aspect of pain and suffering, it cannot be denied that the appellant suffered heavily in the accident. However, at the same time, the Tribunal has awarded him compensation in a sum of ` 50,000/- for pain and suffering and I find the said amount to be sufficient to compensate the appellant for his pain and suffering. It is the case of the appellant that he was earning ` 18,000/- per month at the time of the accident, out of which he claims to be getting ` 10,000/- as salary and the remaining amount of ` 8,000/- is claimed to have been received as incentives. There is no cogent evidence to prove that he was receiving any incentive and if so, in what amount. So, the income of the appellant has to be taken in a sum of ` 10,000/-. F.A.O. No. 665 of 2011 9 .. However, he remained out of job for three and a half months and he was entitled to ` 35,000/- as loss of income during the period of treatment. The appellant has travelled from Ludhiana to Gurgaon, Delhi and Ludhiana and between those hospitals several times for treatment as well as for physiotherapy. The amount of Rs.10,000/- allowed as transportation expenses also appears to be on lower side. A sum of `25,000/- can be said to be adequate compensation to the appellant for his transportation expenses. Similarly, attendant charges are also awarded on a lower side in a sum of ` 5,000/-. They are required to be enhanced to ` 25,000/- in this case. In these circumstances, I allow the appeal and enhance the compensation from ` 4,00,000/- to ` 5,65,000/- with other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 2nd , 2011 som