1 FAO NO. 1363 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 1363 of 2010 (O&M) Date of order: 20.10.2011 Parmanand ..... Appellant Versus Mohar Singh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Ms. Shamsher Kaur, Advocate for respondent no.3. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. The claimant had filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short 'the Act') for grant of compensation in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries, he suffered in a road side accident that occurred on 04.08.2005. The claimant has made the following claim:- On 04.08.2005, he was travelling as a pillion rider with Jatinder Singh on motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-52/4967. A dumper bearing registration no.HR-38-D/5267 driven by Mohar Singh @ Mehar Chand, respondent no.1 came from their backside. It was being 2 FAO NO. 1363 of 2010 (O&M) driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. The dumper had hit their motorcycle from behind, on account of which the motorcycle fell down bringing the claimant down on the road. He suffered multiple injuries including two fractures in his left leg. He was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where he underwent treatment. He is still under treatment and requires plastic surgery of his left leg. The accident was reported at Police Station Sadar Palwal where FIR No.264 was registered on 4.8.2005 itself against respondent no.1. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been spent in his treatment till the date of filing the petition. He has claimed himself to be a young man of the age of 21 years having held diploma in Medical Lab Technology and serving M/s Jyoti Engineering Work, Khandsa, Gurgaon since 01.05.2005 at a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Respondents no.1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement. They have denied the very accident to have occurred. The FIR is alleged to have been lodged in collusion with the police. It is also denied that the claimant had spent Rs.1,00,000/- in his treatment. The amount sought as compensation is said to be highly exaggerated. Respondent no.3 in its written statement has questioned the maintainability of the petition in the present form. Cause of action and locus standi with the claimant are also denied. The driver of dumper bearing registration no.HR38-D/5267 is denied to be holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. It is denied that any accident has occurred with the said dumper. The FIR lodged with the police is said to be false and collusive. The income of the claimant is 3 FAO NO. 1363 of 2010 (O&M) denied to be Rs.10,000/- per month. It is asserted that he was not getting more than Rs.1600/- per month. Claiming the claim petition to be false, the same is prayed to be dismissed. It is added that it is a case of contributory negligence and the answering respondent has claimed its liability to pay compensation as per its share in the negligence. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (for short 'learned Tribunal):- “1- Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the road side accident which took place on 4.8.2005 near Anaj Godown, village Ratipur, Tehsil Palwal on account of rash or negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.HR38/D-5367 by respondent no.1 which is owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3, as alleged ?OPP 2- If issue no.2 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to pay amount as compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?OPP 3- Whether the petition has been filed without any locus standi and cause of action on the part of the petitioner, as alleged ?OPR 4- Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of parties ?OPR 5- Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was without a valid and effective driving licence to drive 4 FAO NO. 1363 of 2010 (O&M) the same at the time of accident, as alleged. If so, to what effect?OPR3 6- Relief” Taking evidence of the parties and hearing their learned counsel, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- as compensation to the claimant with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the awarded money. Aggrieved by the award aforesaid, the claimant has brought this appeal for enhancement of compensation. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Arora, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Ms. Shamsher Kaur, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the disability of the appellant has been assessed at 30% and compensation on account of loss arising out of this disability to future income of the appellant should have been assessed by adopting the multiplier system. According to him, the claimant has been aged 21 years and had been unmarried. He has submitted that on account of the accident, his marriage prospects have diminished. He has submitted that even the bills of treatment are in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and they have not been taken into account. He has, therefore, prayed for suitably enhancing the compensation. 5 FAO NO. 1363 of 2010 (O&M) Learned counsel for respondent no.3 on the other hand has submitted that more than adequate compensation has been awarded to the appellant. According to her, compensation has been awarded unreasonably for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- . According to her, compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- could not be awarded separately for loss of expectation of life, which has been done in this case. Similarly she has argued that compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/- for inconvenience hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life could not be awarded. She has, thus, submitted that compensation has been awarded much in excess of the entitlement of the appellant and there is no scope for enhancement of the same. Learned Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life on account of disability. It is a case where the claimant has suffered injuries leading to the disability at the age of 21 years. He has submitted that the appellant had been working with M/s Jyoti Engineering Work, Khandsa, Gurgaon and was getting a sum of Rs.8500/- per month as salary. According to him, disability of 30% would reduce the income of the claimant to that extent and taking the loss at that percentage of the income, the annual loss should have been assessed and then compensation should have been assessed by using a suitable multiplier. For assessing compensation by adopting multiplier system, there should be functional disability. In the case in hand, the appellant has claimed himself to have a diploma in Medical Lab Technology. His 6 FAO NO. 1363 of 2010 (O&M) work as Medical Lab Technician cannot be much affected by the disability of 30% which is qua his left leg. Therefore, his disability cannot be treated as functional disability for the petitioner and the compensation for this disability was not required to be assessed by adopting the multiplier system. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,09,899/- as compensation for the medical expenses. This shows that no amount has been left out by learned Tribunal, which has been proved as spent on his treatment. Learned Tribunal has granted two months' salary for loss of income during his treatment though with the name of loss of earning of profit. Learned Tribunal has also awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.62,750/-, the amount proved to have been spent in transportation of the appellant. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been assessed as compensation for damages on account of mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, suffered in the past and likely to be suffered in future. This amount is definitely on higher side. The amount awarded in excess of the due amount under this head can very well compensate the appellant for loss of future comfort on account of the disability. Though damages of loss of expectation of life in a sum of Rs.20,000/- is hypothetical yet it cannot be said that such loss is altogether imaginary. Still the amount in a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded for inconvenience hardship, discomfort etc. is definitely covered under the compensation awarded for pain and suffering. 7 FAO NO. 1363 of 2010 (O&M) In these circumstances, even if the appellant could have been held entitled to compensation for loss of future income on account of the disability by adopting the multiplier system, the same would not have been awarded in a sum higher than the amount, which has been awarded in this case. Thus, if the loss of marriage prospects is not to be considered, the compensation awarded to the appellant seems to be adequate. However loss of marriage prospects is a real loss for which a person is to be compensated. The appellant has suffered disability of 30% qua his left leg and this would definitely reduce the marriage prospects if not his work as Medical Lab Technician. In similar situation, this court in Rajesh v. Surjeet Singh and others(2005-2)PLR 295 has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of matrimonial prospects. I find that the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of marriage prospects. Keeping in view the fact that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded in Rajesh's case (supra), six years back, I find a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as sufficient to compensate the appellant for loss of marriage prospects. Taking into account the aforesaid discussion, I accept the appeal and enhance the compensation from Rs.3,90,000/- to Rs.5,40,000/-, which shall be payable to the claimant by the respondents jointly and severally alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 20.10.2011 JUDGE dinesh