IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 954 of 1987 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 Ram Rattan. ....... Appellant through Shri Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus Haryana State and others. ....... Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent no.3 through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is an appeal directed against award dated 7.8.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T.Case No.22 of 2.8.1985. The appellant had suffered 100% disability in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 31.3.1984 due to which he was paralysed from waist downward. The relevant extract of the testimony of PW5- Lt.Col.Dr.Satya F.A.O. No.954 of 1987 -2- .... Paul Jyoti, who had treated the appellant at Military Hospital, Kirkee, Pune, is to the following effect:- “.......Sepoy Ram Rattan was admitted to Spinal Cord injury centre at 16.15 hours on 21sat April,1984 as a transfer case from Base Hospital, Delhi Camp. On admission, his general condition was weak and he was running high fever. He had complete loss of sensations and motor power below the waist. He also had no control over urination and bowel. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Ram Rattan cannot work without the helper. He would lead the wheel chair life. Ram Rattan is permanently disabled as he has no sensation or power below the waist and also has no control over urination and bowel, besides he has lost his sexual power. His disability is one hundred per cent. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx” The statement of the appellant-injured was recorded about three years after the accident and he was stated to be paralytic. In the replies to the cross questions, PW5-Lt.Col.Dr.Satya Paul Jyoti also stated that Ram Rattan cannot become fit for the work. In view of the above evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. In a case where there is hundred per cent disability and F.A.O. No.954 of 1987 -3- .... demobilization of the victim of the accident, the compensation has to be assessed by keeping certain parameters in mind. The Court is to see primarily that a victim of the accident has been reduced to a vegetative state in which he lives the spectre of death every day. And the life of such a victim is often the one of drudgery and full of indignities, which often make human decency a rare commodity. His existence becomes not only an emotional strain for him, but also for his family members,upon whom he is also a financial strain, drawing heavily on their material resources. In the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs.35000/- as compensation to the appellant, which is not even sufficient for his survival for a few months, what to talk of the entire life. Therefore, it is a fit case in which the principle of Rs.2000/- per percentage of the disability should be applied for assessing compensation. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of permanent disability suffered by him. He is further held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of enjoyment of life as well as pain & suffering. Because of his disability, his movement has been permanently impaired. He has also been deprived of sexual pleasures which has also robbed his spouse of the colour of matrimony. Another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is allowed to the appellant for procuring services of an attendant which he would require throughout his F.A.O. No.954 of 1987 -4- .... life. Thus, the appellant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall be payable to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. November 17,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge