FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1995, 1894 to 1897 of 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO No.298 of 1996 Date of Decision : 31.10.2011 Inder Kumar Goel .......Appellant Versus Sarup Lal and others .......Respondents (ii) FAO No.299 of 1996 Dr. Anil Kumar Goel .......Appellant Versus Sarup Lal and others .......Respondents (iii) FAO No.300 of 1996 Inder Kumar Goel .......Appellant Versus Sarup Lal and others .......Respondents (iv) FAO No.301 of 1996 Dr. Anil Kumar Goel .......Appellant Versus Sarup Lal and others .......Respondents 1 FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1995, 1894 to 1897 of 1995 (v) FAO No.1894 of 1995 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Inder Kumar Goel and others .......Respondents (vi) FAO No.1895 of 1995 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Inder Kumar Goel and others .......Respondents (vii) FAO No.1896 of 1995 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Dr. Anil Kumar Goel and others .......Respondents (viii) FAO No.1897 of 1995 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Dr. Anil Kumar Goel and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. P.C. Goyal, Advocate, for the claimant-appellant(s) (in FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1996). 2 FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1995, 1894 to 1897 of 1995 Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant-Insurance Company (in FAO Nos.1894 to 1897 of 1995). **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) Eight appeals, namely, FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1996 and 1894 to 1897 of 1995, are being disposed of by this single judgment, having arisen out of the same accident. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that on 7.8.1992, Inder Kumar Goel, along with his wife, Uma Rani Goel (deceased), his son, Dr. Anil Kumar Goel, and daughter-in-law, Dr. Monika Goel (deceased), were travelling from Delhi to Phillaur, District Jalandhar, in a DCM Toyota bearing No.PIL-9576. Household luggage of Inder Kumar Goel and his son, Dr. Anil Kumar Goel, was also being carried in the said truck. It is alleged that the truck was being driven by its driver, Sarup Lal, in a rash and negligent manner. When they reached near Mohra on GT Road, the driver lost control over the truck and struck against Joginder Singh, who was going on his cycle, from behind resulting into his death at the spot. Thereafter, the driver struck against an Eucalyptus tree standing near the road, due to which, all the four persons on board received multiple and serious injuries. Monika Goel and Uma Rani Goel succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The luggage which was being carried in the truck was also damaged. Five claim petitions were filed which were disposed of by a single consolidated Award dated 5.5.1995, which is under challenge 3 FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1995, 1894 to 1897 of 1995 by way of the present eight appeal, out of which, four are preferred by the claimants and other four are by the Insurance Company. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Insofar as the FAO No.298 of 1996, preferred by Inder Kumar Goel, is concerned, it has come on record that he received six injuries including injuries on his left knee, left thigh and left hip. He also suffered fracture of left knee and pelvis bone. However, he did not remain hospitalized and was treated by medicines. It is evident from the record that at the time of the accident, the appellant had already retired from his service and was getting pension. Therefore, no loss of income could have been caused. It was averred that he spent `4,000/- on medicines, investigation and transportation, etc. but he could not produce any medical bills to prove the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment. In the claim petition, the appellant claimed to have suffered 30% permanent disability. The appellant could not substantiate this fact by way of any evidence, although the weakness of left thigh muscle on account of injuries received has come on record. The learned Tribunal has awarded ` 4,000/- on account of medicines, `6,000/- on account of special diet, `5,000/- for paying salary to the Nurse and servant, etc. Another sum of `5,000/- has been granted towards pain and agony suffered by him and `5,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of future life. In the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded under 4 FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1995, 1894 to 1897 of 1995 different heads as aforesaid, is just and appropriate and no interference is called for. FAO No.298 of 1996 is, therefore, dismissed. As regards FAO No.299 of 1996, preferred by Dr. Anil Kumar Goyal, it has come on record that the deceased, Monika Goel, wife of the appellant, was a young qualified doctor of 24 years of age. The learned Tribunal has granted a lump sum amount of `1,00,000/- as compensation to the appellant, Dr. Anil Kumar Goyal, husband of the deceased. It erred in not taking into consideration the future career prospects of the deceased and granting lump-sum compensation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the deceased being a qualified M.B.B.S. doctor, her income is assessed at `5,000/- p.m, from which a deduction of 1/3rd is applied on account of her personal expenses. As is evident from the record, the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of her death in the accident. As per the schedule provided by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the multiplier of 18 should be applied in the present case. It is ordered accordingly. In this view of the matter, the appellant is held entitled to the enhanced compensation of ` 6,12,800/- (say `6,13,000/-) [`7,12,800/- (`5,000/- X 1/3 X 12 X 17) – ` 1,00,000/-], which shall be payable to him within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, he shall be further entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal, till its realization. 5 FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1995, 1894 to 1897 of 1995 In FAO No.300 of 1996, the deceased, Uma Rani, wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellant No.2, was posted as Headmistress in Government Girls High School. She was drawing a salary of `5,218/- per month. The learned Tribunal, while passed the impugned Award, assessed her net income at `4,800/- per month, after deducting Income Tax. The appellants had been getting `2,000/- per month as family pension. After deducting 1/3rd on account of her personal expenses and `2,000/- as family pension, the learned Tribunal assessed the net loss in pecuniary terms as `1,200/- p.m. After applying the multiplier of 7, the total compensation was assessed to `1,00,800/- on account of the dependency. Another amount of `4,200/- has been granted on account of transportation, last rites, etc. Out of the aforesaid amount, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 have been held entitled to ` 25,000/- and `80,000/-, respectively. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the Award passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and no case for enhancement of the awarded amount is made out. FAO No.300 of 1996 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, being devoid of any merit. 6 FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1995, 1894 to 1897 of 1995 In FAO No.301 of 1996, it has been pleaded that the appellant, Dr. Anil Kumar Goyal, suffered six simple injuries on account of the Accident. Nothing has come on record to show that the appellant remained admitted in the hospital even for a day. The learned Tribunal has granted a sum of `5,000/- on account of the injuries received by him, which in the opinion of this Court, is just and reasonable. It was further pleaded that the appellant suffered loss of `90,000/- due to the damage caused to his luggage. In the absence of any documentary proof, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the version of the appellant that 100% damage had been caused to the goods and a lump sum amount of `10,000/- was granted on account of the damage to the goods due to the accident. As the factum of the accident and the luggage being loaded in the offending truck is admitted on record, some damage must have been caused thereto. In the circumstances, the amount of `10,000/- appears to be just and appropriate and no case for enhancement is made out. Thus, FAO No.301 of 1996 also deserves to be dismissed. As a sequel to the discussion made in the foregoing paras, FAO Nos.298, 300 and 301 of 1996 are dismissed; FAO No.299 of 1996 is partly allowed and the Award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. As regards the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, nothing has come on record to prove that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in each claim petition is on a higher side. Therefore, FAO Nos.1894 to 1897 of 1995, are also dismissed. 7 FAO Nos.298 to 301 of 1995, 1894 to 1897 of 1995 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 31.10.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 8