IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. FAO No. 105 of 2005 Date of Decision : November 13 , 2009 Garja Ram …Appellant. Versus: Amar Nath & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Jagdish Thakur vice Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate. For respondent No.3 : Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.4 : Mr. B. M. Chauhan, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) It is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in terms of the impugned award dated 6.1.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. in M.A.C. Case No. 23 of 2002. The undisputed facts which have emerged from the record are as under. On 31.10.2001, claimant Shri Garja Ram was travelling in Maruti Van No. HP-24-2658 which met with an 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 accident with Bus No.HP-24-A-3501. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, driver who was driving Maruti Van, which was insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The driver was possessed with a valid and effective driving licence. In the accident, the claimant sustained injuries on his right leg and for treatment, had to be admitted in the Post Graduate Institute Hospital, Chandigarh w.e.f. 2.11.2001 upto 13.12.2001. In the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the claimant stands awarded the following amount of compensation; (i) Rs.15,000/- towards reimbursement for medical treatment and conveyance charges, (ii) Rs.5,000/- towards gratuitous services rendered by the claimant’s family, (iii) Rs.10,000/- on account of lay off for a period of 6 months, (iv) Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical pain and suffering, (v) Rs.15,000/- towards loss of future income, expectation of life, loss of amenities of life, inconvenience, hardship, dejection and mental stress. A total sum of Rs.55,000/- awarded as compensation was to carry interest @9% per annum only if the same was not deposited within two months from the date of award. The owner and the driver of the vehicle have accepted the award. The claimant is only seeking enhancement. In my considered view, there is no scope for increasing the amount awarded towards medical reimbursement. 3 However, a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards gratuitous services rendered by the claimant’s family members is on the lower side. The accident took place in District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The insurer was taken for treatment to the Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur from where he was referred to PGI Hospital, Chandigarh where he remained admitted from 2.11.2001 to 13.12.2001. The claimant sustained serious injuries in his leg as his right femur bone had broken and he had to undertake treatment for the same. The petitioner who was 23 years of age could not handle affairs himself and had to be attended to. Expenses for lodging and boarding had to be incurred by the attendant. Hence, awarded sum of Rs.5,000/- is enhanced to Rs.8,000/-. The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded on account of lay off for a period of six months also needs to be enhanced. While working with the Halwai claimant is stated to have earned Rs.150/- per day as also stated by his employer Shri Suresh Kumar (PW-2). However, there is no documentary evidence to prove the said fact. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant to be that of an unskilled labourer while determining compensation on account of lay off. In the year 2001, even a daily wager was being paid Rs.80/- per day. The petitioner was working with Halwai not as a labourer. Hence, his income @Rs.90/- per day can safely be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation. Undisputedly, petitioner 4 remained without work for a period of six months. Hence, compensation on account of lay off for the said period works out to Rs.90 x 30 = Rs.2,700 x 6 = Rs.16,200/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. It is argued that petitioner incurred permanent disability to the extent of 7%. It is true that the petitioner has not been able to prove the disability certificate as required in law. In any event, the disability of 7% incurred by the claimant is likely to improve. However, petitioner in his un-rebutted statement has clarified that he is still undergoing medical treatment. With the passage of time his pain and suffering is likely to increase. He was a young man of 23 years. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is increased to Rs.20,000/- towards mental and physical pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to the following compensation : (i) Towards reimbursement for medical treatment and conveyance charges, : Rs.15,000/- (ii) Towards gratuitous services rendered by the claimant’s family, : Rs.8,000/- (iii) On account of lay off for a period of 6 months, : Rs.16,200/- (iv) Towards mental and physical pain and suffering, : Rs.20,000/- 5 (iv) Towards loss of future income, expectation of life, loss of amenities of life, inconvenience, hardship, dejection and mental stress.: Rs.15,000/- ------------------------- Total Rs: 74,200/- ------------------- The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any pendente lite interest to the claimant. The same is accordingly ordered. On the awarded as also enhanced amount, the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% from the date of petition till realization. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. November 13, 2009. (rana)