FAO No. 3414 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3414 of 2009 Date of decision: 13.01.2010 Harbans Singh ....Appellant Versus Ram Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 7.2.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was allowed and the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,19,000/- (Rupees two lac nineteen thousand only) along with interest @ 8% per annum was awarded. Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) were also awarded to the appellant. The case of the appellant was, that on 13.8.2005 he was employed as Cleaner on truck No. RJ-31G-3571, which was driven by Balbir Singh. Truck was going from Zirakpur to Bathinda side being driven at normal speed. When the truck reached in the area of village Ram Nagar, near petrol pump, Police Station Banur, a bus bearing No. FAO No. 3414 of 2009 -2- PB-13N-7625 being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently at very high speed, came from behind and demanded side for overtaking. Side was given to the bus. Respondent No.1 without caring for the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, tried to overtake the truck, and in the process hit a Maruti Zen car No. PB-11AA-2609, as a result of which the car fell on the roadside ditches, and the driver sustained multiple injuries. The driver of the bus also lost control and hit the truck, with the impact that the truck turned turtle in the roadside ditches, and also hit a kikker tree. As a result of the accident, left leg of the appellant was amputated below the knee. FIR was also registered against respondent No.1 for rash and negligent driving. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac only) on the pleading, that he was aged 38 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month. Due to accident he had to remain indoor patient in Government Medical College, Patiala from 13.8.2005 to 27.9.2005, where his left leg was amputated below the knee. After treatment, he got artificial leg from Nevedac Prosthetic Centre, Zirakpur. It was claimed, that more than Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) were spent on his treatment. Claim petition was contested and the allegations and the claim were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which had taken place on 13.8.2005 at FAO No. 3414 of 2009 -3- about 2.10 pm on Rajpura-Banur Road, near Petrol Pump in the area of Village Ram Nagar, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Ram Singh while driving Bus No. PB- 13N/7625? OPA 2. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident? If so, its effect : OPR-4 3. Whether claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? OPA 4. Relief.” On appreciation of evidence, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded, a finding that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Ram Singh, while driving bus No. PB-13N-7625. Respondent No.1 was held to be holding valid licence at the time of accident. On issue No.3, as already observed above, the appellant was granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,19,000/- (Rupees two lac nineteen thousand only) along with interest. The break up of the compensation granted was Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) for pain and sufferings, Rs.26,000/- (Rupees twenty six thousand only) on account of medical expenses, Rs.4,700/- (Rupees four thousand and seven hundred only) for the artificial leg and Rs.44,000/- (Rupees forty four thousand only) on account of 40% disability. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the compensation granted is inadequate, therefore, cannot be sustained in view of the evidence on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that if the formula as given in Schedule II of the FAO No. 3414 of 2009 -4- Motor Vehicles Act, is applied, then the appellant was entitled to compensation on account of loss of earning keeping in view the age of the appellant. The percentage of loss of earning, in view of permanent disability was 50%, as per formula given in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. If the loss of earning is taken to be 50%, then even if the income of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month, as assessed by the learned Tribunal, is taken, then his loss of income would be Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month. If the multiplier of 13 was applied, keeping in view the age of the appellant, the compensation payable for permanent disability would come to Rs.2,34,000/- (Rupees two lac thirty four thousand only) and not Rs.1,44,000/- (Rupees one lac forty four thousand only) as assessed, by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, however, contends that adequate compensation has been granted and all the material facts have been taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company also was, that in view of the job being performed by the appellant was even possible with artificial leg, therefore, there is no loss of income. It cannot be, therefore, said that amount awarded was inadequate. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Statutory recognition is taken of the FAO No. 3414 of 2009 -5- fact, that loss of leg below knee results in loss in earning to the tune of 50% of earning capacity. If income is taken to be Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month, as assessed by learned Tribunal, then there was a loss of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month as per Schedule attached to Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,34,000/- (Rupees two lac thirty four thousand only) on account of permanent disability. The Tribunal was right in granting the compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and artificial leg, which calls for no modification and is upheld. The compensation payable, thus, comes to Rs.2,99,700/- (Rupees two lac ninety nine thousand and seven hundred only), which is rounded off to Rs.3.00 lac (Rupees three lac only). Consequently, the compensation awarded to the appellant is enhanced to Rs.3.00 lac (Rupees three lac only) along with interest @ 8% on the enhanced compensation, from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 13, 2010 R.S.