F.A.O.No. 503 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 503 of 1987 & Cross-Obj.No.39-CII of 1987 Date of decision : 25.11.2008 Universal Stone Crushing Mills, Mirthan ....Appellant Versus Sarup Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1/Cross-Objector. MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of F.A.O.No.503 of 1987 and Cross-Objection No.39-CII of 1987. The only plea that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award of the Tribunal is that under the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which are reproduced as below, the liability of the Insurance Company was to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- and not Rs.50,000/- as has been erroneously held by the learned Tribunal :- “Subject to the provision to sub-section(1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely :- F.A.O.No. 503 of 1987 -2- (a) Where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of (one lakh and fifty thousand rupees) in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle.)” To substantiate this plea, reliance was placed on Maitri Koley and another v. New India Assurance Co. and others, (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 718, wherein the apex court in para no.5 of the judgment observed as under :- “5. It was next submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company could not have been limited to a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It was pointed out that the Tribunal and the High Court fell in error in concluding that the liability was restricted to the sum of Rs.50,000/- under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. We find that in 1982, Section 95(2) had been amended to increase the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus, on the date of the accident the liability of the Insurance Company was Rs.1,50,000/-. There was thus no justification for restricting the liability of the Insurance Company to only Rs.50,000/-.” Concededly, the provision of law was amended in 1982 increasing the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. The accident in the instant case occurred on F.A.O.No. 503 of 1987 -3- 26.10.1984, much after the amendment had come into existence. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the liability of the insurance company was Rs.50,000/-. This finding is, therefore, set aside and it is held that the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. In so far as the cross-objections are concerned, the claimant/cross-objector has stated that the amount awarded on account of the injuries sustained by him is inadequate. The claimant has lost a portion of his right foot as the same had been amputated after the accident. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.1,311.80 but determined the loss as Rs.1,000/- per month by holding that Rs.300/- to 400/- would be the amount of pension that he would get after his retirement from service. This amount was determined keeping in view the basic salary of the claimant as Rs.660/- per month. Thereafter the learned Tribunal held that since it cannot be said that the earning capacity of the claimant had been impaired totally and also considering the fact that he had 10/12 kanals of land, the income was slashed by 1/3rd to arrive at a figure of Rs.48,000/-. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded on account of medical expenses and another sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. In this manner, an amount of Rs.63,000/- was awarded to him. After hearing the learned counsel for the cross-objector, I am of the opinion that the amount awarded is inadequate. The Tribunal could not have deducted the amount of pension if the criteria as adopted by the Tribunal was to be accepted. Therefore, the F.A.O.No. 503 of 1987 -4- income of the claimant/cross-objector is taken as Rs.1,300/- per month or Rs.15,600/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of 6 the amount comes to Rs.93,600/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the same, the loss of income is assessed at Rs.62,400/-. Concededly, the claimant/cross-objector also suffered the amputation of foot and therefore, the amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been awarded for pain and suffering is inadequate. It is held that the claimant should be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering. Rs.5,000/- are awarded to him on account of special diet, etc. and another sum of Rs.5,000/- for transportation and attendant charges. The claimant/cross-objector is, therefore, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.92,400/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimant/cross-objector along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to satisfy the award shall be as has been determined by this order. With the aforesaid modification in the award, the appeal and cross-objections stand allowed. 25.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss