`IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 198 of 2006 Date of Decision: 8.9.2011 Smt. Sheela Devi … Appellant. Versus. H.R.T.C. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. Inder Jeet Singh Narwal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. H.S.Rawat, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of awarded amount. 2. The undisputed facts are that the claimant was travelling in bus No. HP-07-3014 owned by the HRTC which met with an accident on 16th July, 2000. The claimant was admitted to the hospital at Solan and from Solan she was referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh (PGI) where she remained under treatment from 17.7.2000 to 2.9.2000. A perusal of the statements of PW-7 and PW-8 and the documents proved by them show that the leg of the petitioner has been shortened. Her permanent disability has been 2 assessed at 55% by the Orthopedic Surgeon and PW-8 has also stated that her eye sight had weakened and that she is suffering from 15% disability of eye. From the material on record it appears that the petitioner was a house wife but was also engaged in weaving shawls and on this basis compensation has been claimed. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.3,21,264/- and awarded the same alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied by the award the claimant filed the claim petition. 3. I have heard Shri Inder Jeet Singh Narwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri H.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It stands proved on record that as per the medical bills Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-57 the total medical expenses incurred by the claimant upto the year 2000 were Rs.76,493/-. Out of this the HRTC admittedly paid a sum of Rs.45,229/- and therefore, the Tribunal awarded the balance amount of Rs.31,264/-. I am of the considered view that in cases like the present one some times it is not possible to keep all the bills. Further treatment may also be required in future and therefore, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of medical expenses for past and future in addition to the amount of Rs.45,229/- which actually had been paid by the HRTC. 3 The claimant has also proved on record that she spent Rs.9,200/- for taxis, etc. but this amount has not been taken into consideration and she is held entitled to Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges. 5. The claimant was admitted in the PGI and remained there for one and half months. She would have required full time attendants at PGI. The tort feasor is liable to compensate the claimant even for the gratuitous services rendered by the family members. This Court can take judicial note of the fact that at PGI more than one attendant would have been required to look after the claimant 24 hours a day. Not only the attendants have to look after the patient but the claimant must also be compensated for the boarding and lodging of the attendant at PGI. The claimant has been awarded Rs.30,000/- on this account, which works out to approximately Rs.500/- per day, which in my opinion appears to be reasonable. 6. The claimant has been awarded Rs.40,000/- for pains and sufferings. This amount also appears to be reasonable and calls for no enhancement. Similarly, the amount of Rs.60,000/- awarded for loss of amenities of life also does not call for any interference. 7. Shri Inder Jeet Singh Narwal, learned counsel for the claimant urges that amount of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded on account of loss of future income is wholly inadequate. 4 Before coming to the loss of future income, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in not granting any amount to the claimant for the loss of income which she sustained when she was uable to do anything. She remained admitted in hospital for one and half months and thereafter as per the documents placed on record she was advised bed rest and therefore, it is apparent that at least for a period of four months the claimant was unable to do any work. Even if she was a house wife and doing some work of weaving shawls her income can be assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and she is entitled to Rs.12,000/- for actual loss of income. 8. Next comes the question of future loss of income. The learned Tribunal has just awarded an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- without giving any reasons or explanation on the basis of which such amount has been awarded. The claimant at the relevant time was aged about 32 years. She is a young lady. She has been scarred for life. Her leg has been shortened and her disability is more than 50%. Her eye sight has been substantially affected which will also affect her earning capacity in future. Keeping all these factors into consideration it would not be unreasonable to assess the future loss of earning at Rs.1500/- per month or Rs.18,000/- per year. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 5 and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier applicable in the case where the claimant is 32 years is 16. The future loss of earning works out to Rs.2,88,000/-. The total compensation, therefore, payable to the claimant works out to Rs.4,90,000/-. On this amount the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount. Needless to say that the amount already deposited by the HRTC shall be taken into consideration while calculating the entire awarded payment. HRTC is directed to deposit the balance amount in the Registry of this Court within 12 weeks from today. The appeal of the claimant is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,21,264/- to Rs.4,90,000/-. No costs. 8th September, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.