HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT JAMMU. CIMA NO. 08/2005 Date of Decision: 20.11.2008 ________________________________________________________ Vijay Laxmi Vs. Amarjeet Singh and anr Coram: MR.JUSTICE J.P.SINGH, JUDGE Appearing Counsel: For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. D. Subdan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for R-1. Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate for R-2. i) Whether approved for reporting in Press/Journal/Media : Yes/No ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes/No _______________________________________________________________________________ Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to her as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu, for the injuries she had sustained on July 13, 2000 when she had been hit by brashly and negligently driven truck no. JK02L-0945 by Amarjeet Singh respondent, Mrs. Vijay Laxmi appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Appellant’s learned counsel Mr. B. D. Sundan submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing appellant’s loss of amenities of life at Rs. 30,000/- and for pain and 2 sufferings at Rs. 20,000/-. According to him the evidence produced by the appellant would warrant substantial increase ion the amount of compensation to which the appellant would be entitled to. Insurance Company’s counsel Mr. R. K. Gupta justifies the award saying that the Tribunal’s award for an amount of Rs. 61,935/- reflected just amount of compensation and no increase therein is warranted. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the award of the Tribunal and the opinion of the Chairman Standing Medical Board, Government Medical College and Associated Hospitals Jammu. As the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is only regarding the assessment of just compensation for the injuries received by the appellant in the motor vehicular accident arising out of negligent driving of vehicle No. JK02L-0945 by its driver Amarjeet Singh, respondent no.1, so only few facts are needed to be noticed for resolution of the question. Appellant’s age at the time of the accident is stated to be around 40 years. While rejecting her claim that she had 3 been earning Rs. 4000/- per month by stitching clothes, the Tribunal has not assessed her income for the contribution she had been meeting to the family as a house wife. The Tribunal has assessed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities of life but without furnishing any reasons in support thereof. In order to assess just compensation payable either to dependents of the deceased or to an injured victim of the motor vehicular accident, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal is required first to assess the monthly income of the deceased/injured and it is only when such assessment is made, of course supported by reasons for such assessment, that the Tribunal may proceed further to assess the compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Act. The Tribunal shall, while making assessment of compensation, keep in mind the parameters which the Parliament in its wisdom has prescribed in the Second Schedule issued under Section 163-A of the Act for assessment of compensation for third party fatal accident/injury cases claims. The Tribunal does not appear to have taken into account the above mentioned parameters and has arrived at a 4 figure as compensation for loss of amenities of life, which finding of the Tribunal is nothing bit arbitrary, which may not warrant acceptance. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant had received injuries in the year 2000, I do not find it appropriate to remand the case to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation afresh and would consider appellant’s case on the evidence which had been adduced before the Tribunal to assess just compensation. While assessing compensation in case of bodily injury, the Tribunal should consider all relevant factors so as to enable the injured to be put in the same condition as if he/she had not sustained any injury. The principle of restitution-in- integrum should always remain in the mind of the tribunal while assessing compensation under various heads. Going by the law as settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, reported as 2001 ACJ, 1735 and taking the monthly income of the appellant, who is a house wife, at Rs. 3000/- being her contribution to the family, and keeping in view the 15% permanent disability which she had suffered because of sustaining grievous injuries in the motor vehicular accident and above all that she 5 has to live the life of a disabled limping women all through her life, loss of amenities of life to her is assessed by taking 16, the prescribed multiplier for the age of persons like the appellant, as it so appears in the Second Schedule, at Rs. 38,400/-, which when rounded off would come to Rs. 39,000/-. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain and sufferings too appears to be on the lower side. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the principle of restitution-in-integrum, I am of the opinion that as against an amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant for her pain and sufferings, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- would be just compensation. The total compensation to which the appellant would be entitled to comes to Rs. 75,935/- which includes an amount of Rs. 6,935/- being spent by the appellant for her treatment and an amount of Rs. 5000/- spent by her for her special diet. For all what has been said above, this appeal therefore succeeds and is accordingly allowed modifying the Tribunal’s award to be an award of Rs. 75,935/- along with interest as granted by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited by the Insurance Company 6 before this Court within a period of four weeks, which on its deposit shall be released in favour of the appellant, on her proper identification. (J.P.Singh) Judge Jammu 20.11.2008 Anil Raina, Secy.