FAO No.2244 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.2244 of 1999 DATE OF DECISION: March 18, 2011 SMT. TRIPTA ...APPELLANT VERSUS SURENDER SINGH & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS 2. FAO No.3283 of 1999 NEELAM AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SURINDER AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. N.K. SANGHI, ADVOCATE AND MR. ADITYA SANGHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT IN FAO NO.2244 OF 1999. MR. SURINDER GANDHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS IN FAO NO.3283 OF 1999 NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. AMIT SHIVRAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. MR. R.M. SURI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered in an accident. The claimant was a Teacher in a school and she had taken treatment at PGI, Rohtak from 19.9.1997 to 3.10.1997 for FAO No.2244 of 1999 -2- injuries suffered on her face that caused dislocation of the jaw, loss of teeth and some injuries on her eyes. She also had fractures of right arm and the left forearm. The fractures had not united properly and she had subsequently been taking treatment at hospital in Delhi from 29.1.1998 to 4.2.1998. Operations had been done on both the arms for open reduction through plating and nailing. The Tribunal assessed an over-all compensation of `70,000/- without adverting to each one of the heads. 2. There is no representation for the appellant and I have proceeded to examine the case with the help of records available and with the assistance of counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company. For fractures on her face that require wiring and for loss of teeth and also for two fractures in her arms and hospitalization in two different hospitals and a treatment of nearly 6 months requiring her taking leave for 166 days she must have been properly compensated. I will assess the compensation for all the four fractures including dislocation of the jaw at `5000/- per fracture and for the surgical interventions done on two different occasions an additional amount of `10,000/- and take the component of pain & suffering to be `30,000/-. I will provide for medicines, transportation and special diet on the basis of evidence for, namely, that she availed the services of an attendant paying her `3000/- per month. I will, however, make modest estimation of the same in the absence of any documentary proof which ought to have been tendered in evidence. 3. A Medical Board has been constituted and the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 30% that has taken note of the impairment in the movement of the appellant. I do not think it could have in any way impacted her earning capacity as a Teacher. There is no definite proof FAO No.2244 of 1999 -3- about the loss of income, but I will provide for the same for she must have lost her leave to an extent of about 166 days. A detailed tabulation of compensation is as follows:- Injury Cases Age: Period of Hospitalization 19.9.97 to -3.10.97 at PGI, Rohtak/29.1.98 to 4.2.98 at Delhi Occupation & Income - Teacher in school Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Loss of income from to 25,000 2. Medical Expenses: (i) Medicines 5000 (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges 15,000 (iv) Special Diet 6000 3. Transport 10,000 4. Pain & Suffering – per fracture/per surgery 30,000 5. Disability in percentage 6. Loss of earning capacity Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier 7. Reduction in life expectancy/Loss of amenities 30,000 8. Loss of prospect of marriage Total 70,000 /- 1,21,000/- 4. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 6. As regards the claim made in FAO No.3283 of 1999, the deceased was a male aged 32 years who was said to be engaged in dairy FAO No.2244 of 1999 -4- farming. The Tribunal took the income to be `1800/-, adopted a deduction of 1/3rd, applied a multiplier of 16 and determined the compensation of `2,30,400/-. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants points out to the fact that the deceased supported a large family consisting of his wife, two minor children and his two parents and therefore, seeks for a reappraisal of the compensation in the light of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 6 SCC 121. I have tabulated the claims of compensation providing also for loss of consortium to the wife, love and affection for the children and other conventional heads of claim, namely, loss to estate and funeral expenses as follows:- Fatal Accidents Age: 3 Occupation Milk Dairy Claimants Widow, 2 minor children, 2 parents Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Annual Income 1800 1800 2. Add % of increase 30%/50%/Nil 3. Deduction (1/2,1/3, 1/4, 1/5) 1/3 1/4 4. Multiplicand 1350 x 12 5. Multiplier 16 16 6. Loss of Dependence 2,59,200 7. Medical Expenses 8. Loss of Consortium + loss of love and affection 10,000 9. Loss to Estate 2500 10. Funeral Expenses 2000 Total 2,30,400/- 2,73,700/- 7. The total amount of compensation will be `2,73,700/- and the amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. FAO No.2244 of 1999 -5- 8. The additional amount shall be distributed equally amongst the wife and children. 9. Counsel for the insurance company states that the liability of the insurance company was restricted to satisfy merely the claimants and to recover the same from the owner, through an independent judgement given by this Court in FAO No.2197 of 1999 dated 23.7.2001. I have seen through the judgement. It has been disposed of by this Court (Mehtab S. Gill, J.) that the appeal preferred by the insurance company against the very same award to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of this issue of genuineness of driving licence and the issue of recoverability of the award against the insured in the light of New India Insurance Co., Shimla vs. Kamla and others, AIR 2001 SCW 1340. It is not possible to verify how the Tribunal dealt with the issue. I do not think, it is relevant, since in yet another connected case in FAO No.2280 of 1999 dated 1.10.2010, in respect to the same accident, I have dismissed that case and found the insurer fully liable. In terms of the said judgement the claimant shall be entitled to enforce the award against the insurer. 10. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. March 18, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE