FAO No.1763 of 1997(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CM No.13853-CII of 2009 and FAO No.1763 of 1997 (O&M) Decided on : August 07, 2009 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant VERSUS Sandeep Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Piyush Bansal, Advocate. Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate for respondent No.13. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal by the United India Insurance Company – appellant (herein referred as `the appellant') is against the judgment dated 8.5.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- to claimant/respondent Sandeep Kumar (herein referred as the claimant) for having suffered 100% disability in a motor vehicle accident, against the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3. The appellant has neither denied the negligence, nor the liability, but has come with the only plea that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. FAO No.1763 of 1997(O&M) [ 2 ] Argument heard. Record perused. In order to assess the quantum of compensation, the evidence with regard to the injuries as well as the disability needs to be examined. PW3 Sandeep Kumar (claimant) while appearing in the witness box has stated that after the accident, he was removed to the Sarwal Hospital, where he remained admitted for 15 days. His left arm was totally paralysed. His right leg was fractured and because of non-union of bones he had to suffer a lot and spend Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- on his treatment, as a result which, his business was ruined. He disclosed that he was working as a carpenter, but he has now been totally incapacitated to do the work. His leg cannot bear any load and the arm does not work. Earlier, he had been earning Rs.50 to Rs.60/- per day and it was likely to be increased in future, but now instead of earning, he has to spend on his treatment. Dr.Ashok Sarwal (PW1), a private practitioner in Ambala city, while describing the injuries on the person of the claimant, stated that he was admitted in his Nursing Home with bilateral fracture shaft femur with fracture left clavicle with fracture left scapula with brachial plexis injuries left upper limb. The claimant remained admitted in his nursing home till 14.1.1995. He proved two receipts (Ex.P1 and P2) regarding various charges received from the claimant. During cross-examination, he stated that the claimant suffered 100% disability of his left arm and he had suffered fracture of both the thighs. Dr.R.C.Jindal, Orthopedic Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ambala City (PW2), while proving the disability certificate also authenticated that FAO No.1763 of 1997(O&M) [ 3 ] the claimant had suffered 100% disability, because his left arm has totally damaged due to complete paralysis and non-union of the left femur has resulted into stiffness of left knee. Notwithstanding the fact that the multiplier of 25 as applied by the Tribunal in this case is on the higher side, yet the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is within its discretion. The young man at the very threshold of his career has been rendered crippled for throughout his life on account of suffering complete damage to his left arm and also suffered serious injuries to his thighs and knee on account of unfortunate accident. He has been rendered disabled from performing his daily pursuits. The cruel hands of the destiny have snatched his bread, beauty and status in the society. While creating a scenario of such a crippled man, it is enacted that the person suffering from such injuries is rendered half dead. Though, he is alive, but it would be difficult for him to face the society and justify the job, where, he may be working. As such, though, we may not compensate his life, yet some amount of compensation which may appeal to the reason could be awarded for his survival for rest of his life. Thus, the Tribunal while assessing his monthly income at the rate of Rs.3000/- and after deducting Rs.500/- as self dependency, was justified in assessing his net contribution at Rs.2500/- towards his family. Though, it could be said that the Tribunal did not properly exercise its discretion conferred upon it while applying the multiplier in this case, yet if we add the expenses, which the claimant had already spent on his treatment and would have to spend for his future treatment. That apart, the amount spent on transportation, special diet, attendant and also on FAO No.1763 of 1997(O&M) [ 4 ] account of pain and suffering, if assessed at Rs.1.5 lacs, would not be on higher side. As such, after taking the case from any angle, the amount of compensation of Rs.7.5 lacs, which excludes the aforesaid expenses, cannot be said to be on higher side. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. August 07, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE