Allowed

Vijay Soni and Others v. Pardesi Ram and Others

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2014MA/126/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.39,785 to Rs.12,21,625. The Court held the original award was perverse, noting evidence of 75% disability, 100% loss of earning capacity, and loss of vision, and applied the multiplier method accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned award was modified to enhance compensation to Rs.12,21,625 with interest at 6% per annum.

Vijay Soni and Others Vs Pardesi Ram and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

f E. a §§‘ Awaw L ; wax/31% ,7 ) 'C’Vtgk é 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.^- OE 20k ”iv1^9. é ‘ W mmisn Ema G (MEMORANDUM^OFAPPEALU/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES^ACT, 1988)

¶2

, w i m

¶3

¶4

APPELLANTS 1. Vijay Soni, Aged about 45 years, CLAllVIANTS S/o Swarodp Chand Soni, Occupation— Peon, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, BranchVill.- Hathbandh, Resident of^- Village - Hathbandh, Police Station — Tilda, District - “^‘ Raipur (C.G.)

¶5

“ ‘
2.
;

¶6

Next Friend, Smt. Heeramani Soni, W/o Shri Vijay Soni, Resident of^— Village- Hathbandh, Police StationTilda, District^- Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RESPONDENTS 1. Pardesi Ram, Aged about 47 years, NON-CLAIMANTS / § S/o Derha Ram Sahu, Occupation - Driver of Vehicle, Resident of^- Village — Janjgira, Police Station - Bhilai-z, District - Durg (C.G.) Lxéggaxx 2 Anii Mudgiul, S/o 0.D. Mudgal, o ReSIdent of House No.-54, Street ‘.» 2?,."9Q.); No.2, Sector1, Samta Colony, .-:i;jsv<‘;;:::4.§?52?,."9Q.); Raipur, Tah. & Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) _d3&‘> »..’.g®gg®g G Ashok Leyland Finance Company, ‘4‘... q,’^3. Tatibandh, G. E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) ‘ 4. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd” The Manager, Office N0.2, Shy-am Market, Pandri,^Raipur(C.G.)

¶9

W“

¶10

Lxéggaxx 2
o
‘.»
.-:i;jsv<‘;;:::4.§?52?,."9Q.);
,0.
Q.$.ivv_d3&‘> »..’.g®gg®g
‘4‘... q,’ 3.
Q‘dégb
‘ 4.

¶11

c“ 'l'HE MEMORANDUM OF APTEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Claim before the Claims Tribunal - Rs. 15,60,000/— Claim awarded by the Tribunal — Rs. 39,785/Claim for enhancement of the amount/ appeal valued at, - Rs. 11,00,000/-

¶12

HIGH COURT OF-CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice^{PritinkerDiwaker} M.A. No. 126 of 2004 ‘ Appe’llants Vijay Soni and another claim'ants \ VERSUS ‘ \ Resp‘ondents Pardesi Ram and others

¶14

Present:

¶15

Sh'ri Shivendu Pandya,^{c0unselfortheappellants.} None for respondent Nos.1^&2. Smt. Smita Jha, counsel^{forrespondentNo.3.} ‘ Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel^{forrespondentNo.4.}

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(11th^April,2014)

¶18

This appeal arises out of the^{awarddated30.9.2003} passed^by

¶19

the III Additional Motor^{AccidentClaimsTribunal,} Raipur (hereinafter “the referred to as Tribunal") in claim case No.134/99^whereby in an injury case compensation of Rs.39,785/— has been awarded in favour of the injured-claimant.

¶20

02; Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 7.4.1996 when injured claimant Vijay Soni^was riding his motorcycle, he was dashed by a truck bearing registration No.^M.P.23D6454 (hereinafter^referredtoas “offending vehicle"), as a result of which Vijay Soni SUStained number of injuries. He was immediately^{takentoMission} Hospital, Tilda and considering his serious condition, he was referred to higher medical center Sector-9, Bhilai where^{heremainedtill16.5.1996.} O3. A claim case was filed by the injured—claimant^through his next friend Smt. Heeramani Soni (wife of the injured—claimant) claiming compensation of Rs.15 lacs, inter alia, pleading that in the said accident he has suffered severe head injuries,^his jaw^wasbrokenand likewise he also sustained injuries on other parts of his body. At the

¶21

reievant time, the injured—claimant was working as Peon in the District Cooperative Central Society, Branch-Hathband, Raipur and thereby getting^{saiaryofRs.6,110/—} per^{month,onaccountoftheaccidenthe} has iost complete vision of his right eye whereas vision of his ieft eye has also been substantiaiiy reduced to 6/18; he remained in coma for i about one month; he has compietely Iost his memory; and considering his ohysicai condition he was compulsoriiy retired from the bank by giving him three months' saiary and now he is on the road. It was furth‘er pleaded in the ciaim petition that the injured-ciaimant was maintaining his oid mother, father, wife, three minor daughters and a ‘At‘ Mr xson. the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and duiytinsured with respondent No.4. A criminal case was registered against the driver‘and during the course of trial, the driver has accepted his guilt, for which he was duly punished by the competent Court.

¶22

O4. Respondents No. 1 & 2 did not file their written statement and v also remained absent, hence they were proceeded ex-parte. However, respondent No.3/insurance company contested the case and denied its ' liability on usual grounds, such as there was negligence on the part of the injured-claimant, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, valid fitness certificate and permit.

¶23

By the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.39,785/— to the claimant holding that the claimant has failed to prove^thefactumof permanent^{disabilitysufferedbyhimintheaccident} to the extent of 75%. According to the Tribunal, the doctor has not stated as to on what basis the said permanent disability certificate was issued by him. Further, the Tribunal has disbelieved some of the ' medical documents. on the ground that on those documents name of the doctor has not been mentioned. It has also disbelieved the expenditure incurred by the claimant for repair of his motorcycle on the ground^{thatnosuchevidencehasbeenadducedbytheclaimantand}

¶24

has awarded Rs.34,785l— towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/— towards pain and^{sufferingsufferedbytheclaimant.}

¶25

O6. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is as under:

¶26

(i) ithat^{theimpugnedawardappears} to be a mockery of judicial lsystem where the Tribunal has utterly failed to consider the levidence adduced by the claimant^andhas granted^asum of lRs.39,785/— only, which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears to^{bevery muchonthelowerside;}

¶27

(ii) that from the medical^{certificatesEx.P/3&P/13,} it is apparent

¶28

,/: that number of injuries^{weresustainedbytheclaimantincluding} head injury and the claimant^had lost his one eye in the said accident and‘vision of second eye was also substantially reduced to 6/18;

¶29

(iii) that the claimant was working as peon in the bank and immediately after^{hisaccidenthewasremovedfromservicesby} giving^{himthreemonths'salaryandassuch,thoughtheclaimant} has suffered 75% permanent disability, but loss of his earning capacity^is 100%;

¶30

(iV) that under the conventional^headsals o the Tribunal has awarded just^{Rs.5,000/-forpainandsuffering,ignoringthefactthatthe} claimant must have incurred heavy expenditure^towardsother heads and would be^{requiredtoincurexpensesinfuturealsofor} his treatmten ~

¶31

O7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the resndentspo have submitted that the copensationm awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable^{andtherefore,requiresnointerference} by this Court. ‘

¶32

1. Hedar learned counséT for the parties and perused^thematerial available on record. 09. The claimant has examined as many as four witnesses in

¶33

7‘s^vn l

¶34

¶35

support of his case. R.S. Sinha (AW-1), who is Superintendent of District Co-operative Central Bank, Raipur, where the ciaimant was ‘working as peon, has stated that salary of the claimant was Rs.6,110/— 'per month and document to this effect is EX.P/1. He has further stated that after the accident, the claimant was compuisorily retired from the sewic%s by giving him three months' salary and as there is no provision for givihg pension to the bank employees, the claimant has not been given^{anysuchfacility.}

¶36

Hitendra Sharma (AW-2)!^is an eyewitness to the accident. He t“ has categorically stated that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 11. Dr. G‘.D. Agrawal (AW-3) is a Neurosurgeon, who has treated the claimant when he was brought to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai. He has stated that when the patient/claimant was brought to the hospital, he was unconscious, on CT scan of his brain being done it was found that ”there was fracture of left temporal bone and center bone and he had suffered internal head injury also. Both his jaws and right forearm bone were fractured. Though the claimant was discharged from the hospital on 16.5.1996, even thereafter he continued to come there for his treatment as an outdoor patient and on 1.3.2001 he had examined the claimant and had issued the disability certificate of Ex.P/3. According to this certificate, the claimant has lost his memory, there was complete loss of vision in hisright eye, diminution of vision of left eye to 6/18, deformity in right wrist and loss of his working capacity was around 75%. He has further stated that even arm of the claimant could not be cured. The claimant was referred to psychiatrist^andas per^report of the psychiatrist, the claimant had lost his mental ability. He has further stated that the disability suffered by the claimant due to accident can not be cured in future at any place.

¶37

Heeramani Soni (AW-4), wife of the injured claimant, who had filed the claim case on behalf of her husband/claimant, has defined the

¶38

3‘27

¶39

injuries sustained by^{herhusband.Shehasstatedthatintheaccident} her husband/claimant^{hasIosthismemoryandhasbeenremovedfrom} the job.

¶40

¶41

However, the respondents did not adduce any evidence in support of this^case. i

¶42

t L l l

¶43

t. ‘L

¶44

While assessing compensation, especially under the Motor ’Vehicles Act, the TribL‘inals are statutorily responsible for fixing a compensation which^shouldbe just^and proper,^{commensuratewiththe} injuryjqr loss, as^{thecasemaybe,sufferedbytheclaimants.Although} compensation for loss of limbs or life can not be weighed in golden scales, it has to be kept in^{mindthatthecompensationisnotexpected} to be a windfall for‘the^{victim/claimant.} It should be “just” and not a bonanza; not a^sourceof profit,^{butatthesametime,shouldnotbea} pittance.^{Therecanbeno\straightjacketformulagoverning} all cases for measuring the value of human life or limbs in terms of money. it would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any, of each case. Every J‘ method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be “just” considered in the background of compensation which is the pivotal^{consideration.ThoughawidediscretionisvestedintheTribunal} in respect of awarding compensation, but such assessment/determination^{hastoberational,tobedonebya} judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild‘ guesses and “just” arbitrariness.^{Theexpression} denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and^{non-arbitrariness.} lf it is not so, it can not be just.

¶45

ln the case on hand,^{theTribunalwithout} proper^{appreciationof} the pleadings and evidence, in a mechanical manner^hasawardeda sum of Rs.39,785l—^{whichisshockinglydisproportionatetothedamage} suffered by the claimant. The finding recorded by the Tribunal for awarding such compensation^is per^{seerroneousand} perverse.

¶46

9/0

¶47

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in of witnesses medicai certificates (Ex.P/3^& particular^{thestatements} P/13) and the^{statementofDrGD} Agrawai (AW³⁾ the claimant^has ‘successfuily proved^{thatonaccountoftheac0identapartfrom} other Injuries he^{hassufferediossofVISIon} In his right eye^{anddiminutionof} visioh of left^{eyetotheextentof6/18,} his permanent^{disabilityis75%} and he has^also lost his memory.^{Theclaimanthasalso} proved that afterfthe accident^{hewasimmediatelyremovedfromservicesbygiving} lthree him months' salary In such a case though the permanent disability is 75% but the loss of earning capaCIty of the claimant is 100%

¶48

The claimant has pleaded and proved his monthly income as » Rs.6,110/—, which comes to Rs.73,320/— per^annum.Though multiplier method can^{notbemechanicallyappliedtoascertainthefuturelossof} income or earning power,^{however,dependingonvariousfactorssuch} as nature and^{extentofdisablement,avocationoftheinjured,whether} it would affect his or her employment or earning power, the loss of , income or earning^{maybeascertainedbyapplyingthesamemultiplier} as provided^{underthesecondscheduletotheMotorVehiclesAct,1988} (in^short “the Act”). In the present case,^{asalreadyheldsupra,theloss} of earning capacity^{oftheclaimantis100%.Thuskeeping} in view this - aspect of the case,^{consideringtheageoftheclaimantandhisannual} ‘income applying the multiplier of 14, the total loss of (Rs.73,320/—), s earning capacity^{comestoRs.10,26,840/—.} e 18. Undisputedly, the^{claimanthassuffereddisabilitytotheextentof} 75%, thereby depriving him of reasonable enjoyment in life. He has undergone treatment^fora long period^and suffered pain and mental agony. It is really difficult^{toassesstheexactamountofcompensation} for the pain^{andagonysufferedbyhim.Noamountofcompensation} can restore the physical^{frameoftheclaimant.Thatiswhy} it has been said by the Apex Courtⁱⁿ plethora^{ofcasesthatwheneveranyamount} is determined as compensation payable^{foranyinjurysufferedduring}

¶49

mu^m

¶50

an accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate, because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings and personai deprivations. Money can not renew a broken and shattered physicai frame.

¶51

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature and extent of injury, age of the claimant, the period of his hositaiizationp and the fact that even after discharge from hospitai he watakings treatment for the injuries suffered in the accident as an outdoro patient, in the opinion of this Court the ciaimant is entitled for compensation in the following manner:

¶52

‘t

¶53

(i)	For pain & sufferings	Rs.25‘,000/—
(ii)	For nutritional diet	Rs.25,000/—
(iii)	For transportation	Rs.10,000/—
- (iv)	For attendant	Rs.25,000/-
(v)	For loss of amenities and	Rs.50,000/-
	discomfort
(vi)	For Medical expenses	Rs.34,785/- (Maintained)
(vii)	For loss of expectation of life	Rs.25,000/—
	,Total	Rs.1 ,94,785/-

¶54

In view of wath ha s been discussed above, the injured claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.12,21,625/— (Rs. 10,26,840/—⁺ . Rs.,94,785/-)1 and since the Tribunal has already' awarded ‘Rs.39,785/—, after deducting the same the claimant is entitled for enhancement of Rs.11,81,840/— with interest @ 6%‘per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

¶55

The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation with the Tribunal within two months from today.

¶56

As regards disbursement of the amount of compensation, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount in favour of the claimant in accordance with the guidelines of the Apex Court in the matter of

¶57

¶58

General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and others,^{1994ACJ1:AIR1994SC1631.}

¶59

ln the result, the appeal is allowed and the award impygned is modified to extent indicated above.

¶60

Sdl-
Pritinker Diwaker
Judge

¶61

Vijay Soni and Others v. Pardesi Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Soni and Others v. Pardesi Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Shreeniwas and Another Vs Pawni Bai

Harakhram Vs Santosh and Ors.

Mohar Lal Vs Smt Shaira Bano and Others

Membati Bai Vs Hardeep Singh and Others

Smt.mangtin Bai Vs Sanwatdas And Ors.

Prashant Roy Vs Phoolmani And Ors.