FAO No. 622 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 622 of 1988 Decided on : 10-12-2008 Kamal Atri ....Appellant VERSUS M/s Cargo Motors Ltd. and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. K.K.Mehta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rajeev Mehta, Mr. M.S.Kohli, and Mr. R.K.Sapra, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for Insurance Company. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, dated 8.1.1988. Kamal Atri aged 17 years was seriously injured in an accident which took place on 21.4.86. He suffered 90% permanent disability. The statement of PW4 Dr. Upinder Pal Singh, Lecturer, Department of Rehabilitation and Artificial Limbs, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi as reproduced here under is to be noticed to appreciate the extent of damage that the appellant underwent in the accident:- “Komal Atri s/o K.K.Atri, 17 years was brought to me on 20.10.1986 on being referred to from Orthopedic Department of the Institute. As per the record, he had sustained the injuries in a road side accident on 21.4.1986 and had sustained the fracture FAO No. 622 of 1988 2 of right thigh bone and left thigh bone, fracture of both bones of the right arm, fracture of the palvis with head injury and he was unable to move both upper and lower limbs. At the time, when the patient was brought to me, he was unable to sit, stand, walk or talk or to dress himself. He was totally dependent upon others for his personal care. He had diminished sensation on the right half of the body. He also had striffness of all the joints.” The Tribunal after considering the evidence, awarded a total sum of Rs.2,32,000/-. While arriving at this figure of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the appellant as Rs.12,000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of 16 to arrive at a figure of Rs.1,92,000/-. Apart from this, he was awarded Rs.20,000/- on account of pain & suffering,. Rs.12,000/- for engaging an attendant and Rs.3,000/- for conveyance etc. In this manner, total compensation of Rs.2,32,000/- was worked out. Dis-satisfied with the award, the appellant is in appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the award, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded to the appellant is grossly inadequate. It is settled principle of law that in the cases of injuries such as these resulting in a condition in which the injured is metaphorically reduced to a dead person, the parameters for assessing the compensation have to be different than the ones which are adopted even in the cases of death. The reason for this is that a person who has been reduced to such a state, not only suffers mental and physical agony but also invokes similar pain and agony to the persons who attend upon him. He also becomes a drain on the financial and material resources of the family. FAO No. 622 of 1988 3 Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters, the compensation awarded to the appellant deserves to be re-assessed. Apparent from the statement of Dr. Upinder Pal Singh, PW4, the appellant would never be able to recover and lead a normal life. He was a young boy of 17 years whose life has been reduced to a tormented existence. He has been bereft of all the enjoyments of life. Considering the percentage of disability which is 90%, as per settled principle Rs.2000/- has to be awarded for each percentage of disability. Therefore, compensation under this head comes to Rs.1,80,000/-. Further, the amount awarded for pain and suffering is also inadequate. As observed earlier, he is likely to suffer the agony for the rest of his life. Even though there are no strict rules on the basis of which such a compensation can be assessed but suffice it to say considering the impact of the grievous injuries which the appellant has suffered, it would be safe to assess the amount under this head as Rs.1 lac. Rs. 1,92,000/- which has been awarded on account of loss of income also deserves to be modified. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Manju Devi & another versus Musafir Paswan & another' 2005 ACJ 99, although that was a case of death yet principle of assessing the notional income could not vary and even in this case, as observed earlier the appellant has been almost reduced to a vegetable. Therefore, it is safe to assess the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per annum and multiplier of 16 which has been applied by the Tribunal is just and adequate. Therefore, the compensation under this head comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. Rest of the amounts do not warrant any interference. Therefore, the appellant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,35,000/-. FAO No. 622 of 1988 4 The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. However, it is made clear that no interest shall be paid on amount of Rs.2,40,000/- awarded to the appellant on account of loss of income. The liability to satisfy the award shall remain the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands allowed. December 10, 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge