Case: PARMINDER SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed, briefly stated, are as follows:2.1. On 29.03.2009, the Appellant – driver, was driving a Hyundai Elantra car in which Captain Kanwaljit Singh, a Cabinet Minister in Punjab, was being driven from Ludhiana.2.2. At about 5:15 p.m., when the car reached near Village Khanpur, a truck bearing Registration No. HR-55-B-9491 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which came from the opposite direction at a very high speed, and rammed into the car. The accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of another truck bearing Registration No. HR-58-A-9791, which was wrongly parked on the road.2.3. As a result of the accident, Captain Kanwaljit Singh and the Appellant – driver sustained grievous injuries. Captain Kanwaljit Singh succumbed to his injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The Appellant – driver survived, but became permanently disabled.2.4. The Appellant suffered from grievous injuries, including a head injury with traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and had to undergo a hemi-craniotomy i.e. removal of front bone of the skull. He further suffered fracture of both jaw bones, and disfiguration of his face. Due to the severe head injury, his left arm and leg were not functioning properly. The Appellant had to undergo 5 surgeries for which he required successive hospitalizations. He had to visit PGI, Chandigarh on various dates for follow-up treatment as an outdoor patient.2.5. The Appellant was assessed by a Medical Board on 08.09.2010, and on examination it was found to be an operated case with hemiplegia i.e. weakness of one half of the body on the left side. The doctor opined that the Appellant shall not be able to work as a labourer, or do agricultural work, or work as a driver. His disability was assessed at 75%, which was permanent in nature.2.6. The Appellant filed a Claim Petition before the MACT, Panchkula against the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks, along with the insurer of the two offending trucks viz. the Respondent – Insurance Company.The Appellant contended that he was earning an income of Rs. 10,000/-p.m. as a driver prior to the accident.2.7. The Respondent – Insurance Company pleaded that the drivers of the two offending vehicles were driving the trucks without valid driving licenses. The Insurance Company produced a Licensing Clerk from the RTO Office at Mathura, U.P. who deposed that the driving licenses had not been issued in the name of the drivers by their office. The licenses had been issued in the name of some other persons.2.8. The MACT, Panchkula vide Award dated 25.01.2013, allowed the Claim Petition, and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,43,666/-to the Appellant.The MACT proceeded on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m., which worked out to Rs. 72,000/-per annum, on the ground that the Appellant did not produce any evidence, nor examine any witness to prove his income.The loss of income due to functional disability was assessed at 75% which came to about Rs. 54,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 18 to the income of the Appellant, the compensation on account of loss of future earnings worked out to Rs. 9,72,000/-. The Appellant was awarded a total amount of Rs. 10,43,666/- along with Interest @7.5% p.a. for the injuries suffered by him.On the question of liability to pay compensation, the drivers of both the offending trucks were found not to be holding valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the accident. As a result, the MACT held the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Appellant. The Insurance Company was absolved of the liability to pay compensation.2.9. The Appellant filed FAO NO. 10473 of 2014 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the MACT.The High Court vide Interim Order dated 11.07.2017, directed the Appellant to be re-assessed by a Medical Board at the Government Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. After going through the nature of injuries suffered, and the Disability Certificate, the High Court was of the view that the disability suffered by the Appellant was 100% insofar as his earning capacity was concerned, and he had become fully dependant on his family for survival.The High Court vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 partially allowed the FAO, and enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs.21,06,000/-. The compensation was enhanced since the Appellant had suffered from 100% disability with respect to his earning capacity. The High Court granted Future Prospects @50% to the income of the Appellant.The Respondent – Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation to the Appellant in the first instance, and recover the same from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.3. The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the Appellant for enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 1,75,61,000/-since he is permanently disabled, leading a miserable life, and requires a permanent attendant.

Reasoning:
5. We find that the MACT has computed the compensation payable to the Appellant on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. on the ground that no evidence of his income was produced.5.In the present case, it is an admitted position that it is not possible for the Appellant to get employed as a driver, or do any kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural operations whatsoever, for his sustenance.In such circumstances, the High Court has rightly assessed the Appellant?s functional disability at 100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The Appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs. 32,40,000/-towards loss of earning capacity.5.7. We further find that the compensation awarded to the Appellant towards his medical expenses is highly insufficient. The Appellant has undergone 5 surgeries, including a surgery for a severe head injury, and 3 throat surgeries. The Appellant has not been awarded any amount whatsoever either by the MACT, or the High Court for the successive hospitalizations, surgeries and medical treatment.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and fair to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- towards hospitalization and medical expenses incurred in the past by the Appellant.5.8. The Appellant was produced before us. He was in an extremely pitiable state. On account of the removal of the frontal bone of the skull, half of his head has caved in. Furthermore, a deep circular incision was made in his throat, and his body was in an unstable condition, undergoing tremors. The Appellant is further suffering from hemiplegia, due to which the left side of his body is not functioning properly.5.9. Given the debilitated state of the Appellant, no amount of money can compensate him. He has been in this condition since the age of 22 years when the accident took place, and will remain like this throughout his life.The Appellant has also been deprived of having a normal married life with a family, and would require medical assistance from time to time. Being completely dependant, he would require the help of an attendant throughout his life.In view of these uncontroverted facts, we deem it fit and appropriate to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-to the Appellant towards medical expenses and attendant charges.