1 FAO NO. 4328 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 4328 of 2010 (O&M) Date of order: 12.09.2011 Ram Kumar ..... Appellant Versus Harbans Singla and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent no.2. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No. 18366-CII of 2010 Delay of 47 days in filing this appeal is sought to be condoned by the claimant on the plea that he was suffering from 50% permanent disability and after getting the certified copy of the award, he misplaced the same and could not contact his counsel. He has also added that he took sometime in arranging the expenses for filing the appeal also. The application is not opposed by filing reply thereto. Keeping in view the circumstances stated in the application, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 2 FAO NO. 4328 of 2010 FAO No.4328 of 2010 This is an appeal brought by Ram Kumar, appellant against the order dated 24.12.2009 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula(for short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of the compensation. The petition brought by Ram Kumar under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short the Act) has been allowed vide the impugned award for a sum of Rs.3,46,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realisation of the amount. The case set up by the claimant for compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries suffered in a road side accident that took place on 06.12.2006 is as under:- On 06.12.2006 Ram Kumar, petitioner alongwith his employer was coming to Panchkula via Ramgarh in car bearing registration no.HR- 03-0417. When they were near Ramgarh, a stray cattle came suddenly on the road for crossing it. To avoid hitting the same, the petitioner applied emergency brakes, on account of which, the car went out of control and had hit a standing tree by the side of the road. The petitioner suffered multiple injuries including four fractures in the right leg. He was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where he was operated upon on 27.12.2006. He was re- admitted to PGI, Chandigarh and after repeated operations, he was discharged on 06.01.2007 with an advice for bed rest for 7 to 8 months. A report was lodged regarding this accident with Police Station at District Patiala, which was entered in the daily diary. The petitioner has claimed himself to be 22 years old, unmarried young person, who was employed with respondent no.1 and was getting Rs.3200/- per month as salary. 3 FAO NO. 4328 of 2010 The petition is resisted by the respondents. While respondent no.1, the owner of the vehicle, questioned the maintainability of the petition and locus-standi of the petitioner by way of preliminary objection, he had asserted on merits that there was no negligence on his part for causing this accident. Respondent no.2, the insurance company has contested this petition pleading collusion between the claimant and respondent no.1. It is also averred that if the factum of accident was proved, the injured himself was negligent in driving the car. Respondent no.1 was denied to have a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 10.04.2008:- “1- Whether the accident in question in which injuries were suffered by the petitioner, was caused because of rash and negligent driving of Car No.HR-03G-0417 by respondent no.1?OPP 1-A Whether the accident in question in which the injuries were suffered by the petitioner had arisen out of the use of car No.HR03G-0417?OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation , if so, to what amount and from whom ?OPP 3- Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent no.1 without valid and effective driving licence in violation of the terms and conditions of the 4 FAO NO. 4328 of 2010 insurance policy?OPR 4- Relief” Taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal heard learned counsel for the parties and has decided the claim petition vide award dated 24.12.2009, awarding a sum of Rs.3,46,400/- as compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved by the award aforesaid, the claimant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. Vikram Bali, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and have gone through the documents placed on the file. Since this is an appeal brought by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation and no counter appeal has been filed by the respondents, the sole question for decision is as to whether the quantum of compensation has been rightly assessed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while computing compensation on account of disability, learned Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 17. According to him, the claimant has been 22 years old when he suffered this accident and since the permanent disability is at 50% and the claimant is a driver, it would be deemed to be total disability for the purposes of driving. According to him, the petitioner- claimant suffered this accident at 22 years of age and the whole life is before him and the compensation assessed by learned Tribunal for permanent disability at Rs.3,26,400/- is grossly inadequate. He has further submitted that the expenses incurred on medical treatment at Rs.15,000/- is 5 FAO NO. 4328 of 2010 also incorrect because the medical bills from Ex.P5 to Ex.P18 are in a sum of Rs.16,914/-. According to him, it is common knowledge that the victim is never in a position to collect all the bills during his treatment and his attendants also fail to collect all the bills. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal instead of awarding further amount under the said head, the amount actually proved to have been spent in the medical treatment has unreasonably been reduced. He has also questioned the adequacy of the amount of Rs.5000/- granted for pain and suffering. According to him, no amount has been assessed for expenses on attendants, transportation and special diet. He has, thus, claimed enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that the multiplier of 17 is taken from the second schedule and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to refer to any text or decided case where in a case of victim suffering disability at the age of 22 years multiplier to be applied was suggested to be more than 17. He has submitted that for expenses on medical treatment, some enhancement may be made and similar enhancement may be made for compensation for pain and suffering. Learned Tribunal has accepted the claim of the claimant regarding his salary at Rs.3200/- per month. Taking the disability at 50% he has assessed the monthly loss to the claimant on account of the disability at Rs.1600/- and finding the annual loss at Rs.19,200/-, has calculated the amount of Rs.3,26,400/- by applying the multiplier of 17. I find no reason to adopt any other multiplier than 17, which is given for such a case in the second schedule appended to the Act. 6 FAO NO. 4328 of 2010 However, the evidence being there for the petitioner incurring expenses in a sum of Rs.16,914/- in his treatment, as per the medical bills, there was no necessity to reduce this amount to Rs.15,000/-. It cannot be denied that all the bills in such a case are seldom collected by the attendants. Therefore, some margin was to be kept in the mind while allowing the expenses on medical treatment. In these circumstances, I enhance the compensation assessed on account of expenses incurred on medical treatment to Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner remained admitted at PGI, Chandigarh for a period of 30 days. His pain and suffering cannot be compensated by assessing a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation. This amount requires to be increased to Rs.15,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to the expenses incurred on the attendants, transportation and special diet. Taking most conservative view in the matter, a sum of Rs.11,000/- may be given to him for his expenses under these heads. Therefore, the claimant appears to be entitled to Rs.3,72,400/- as compensation. The appeal is, consequently, allowed. The compensation assessed by learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,72,400/-. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 12.09.2011 dinesh