This Court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim for injuries sustained in a road accident. The High Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000 including expenses on treatment, utilizing guesswork to account for lost earnings and suffering.
The impugned award was modified to grant total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 plus interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No.197 of 2007
Date of decision: 21.11.2014
Nikku Ram
…..Appellant
Versus
Vishal Sharma & others ….. Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellant:
Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)
The claimant has questioned the award dated 28th February, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No.47 of 2003, tilted Nikku Ram vs. Vishal Sharma & others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short, “the impugned award”).
2
claimant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.
petition:-
“1. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HP-51-6237 which was being driven by respondent No.2, if so, its effect? OPP.
3
9. Issue No.2
The only question to be determined is to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled. The claimant was admitted in the hospital at Bilaspur from 11th January, 2003 to 4th February, 2003, thereafter was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted as indoor patient. Resultantly, he remained absent from duty for 739 days. Thus, there is proof on the file that the claimant has undergone for pain and suffering, was confined to bed and remained absent from duty for 739 days, he was entitled to
compensation.
16. The accident and the injuries are admitted. The rash and negligent driving has already been proved as per the conclusion drawn in the preceding issue. Now comes the determination of the compensation to be awarded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, as per the averments made in the petition was 52 years of age at the relevant time and was serving as Constable in SSB and on the relevant day he was on leave w.e.f. 5.1.2003 to 13.1.2003 and during his leave period he met with an accident. According to the petitioner, his monthly salary was Rs.10,000/- and after the accident he
4
remained admitted in the Zonal Hospital Bilaspur w.e.f. 11.1.2003 to 4.2.2003 and thereafter, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he remained admitted as indoor patient and had been going to Chandigarh for follow up and as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident he remained absent from duty for 739 days and his salary amounting to Rs.1,23,179/- was also deducted. According to the petitioner, he has spent Rs.50,000/- on his treatment. “ 17. …………. The petitioner has not examined any doctor to prove it on record that on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he remained admitted in various hospitals and due to the impact of the injuries, he could not join his duty and remained absent for 739 days…….”
5
that the claimant has spent Rs.50,000/- on his treatment, I deem it proper to award Rs.50,000/- under this head, though too meager in view of the fact that he has remained in the hospital and confined to bed for pretty long time i.e. 739 days.
( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) Chief Justice
November 21, 2014 (vt/rkv)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for loss of salary due to absence from duty resulting from a vehicular accident?
What quantum of compensation should be awarded under heads such as loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and medical expenditure?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.D. Hattangadi vs M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.Applied¶40
AIR 1995 SC 755 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nikku Ram
Vishal Sharma
Mansoor Ahmad Mir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
