Allowed

Pooja Devi v. Piar Chand

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024FAO/86/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claim appeal, the High Court enhanced compensation for attendant charges following National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reworked the award by converting future medical expenses to loss of amenities, and ordered no additional sum for future loss of earnings due to lack of evidence despite the specific citation from that ratio.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to a revised total of Rs.19,24,460/- with specific heads recalculated as detailed in the judgment's order table.

Pooja Devi Vs Piar Chand — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:7855 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

FAO No.86 of 2016

¶4

Decided on: 4^th September 2024

¶5

_______________________________________________________________ Pooja Devi ....Appellant Versus Piar Chand & anr. …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶6

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶7

lWhether approved for reporting?

¶8

_________________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: None for respondent No.1. Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶10

Appellant suffered injuries in a motor accident on 24.01.2012. She instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.80,85,016/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal in short) allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,38,870/- in

¶11

l Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶12

2024:HHC:7855 )

¶13

¶14

favour of the appellant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. In the instant appeal, the claimant seeks enhancement of the compensation amount awarded in her favour by the learned Tribunal.

¶15

2. It will be appropriate to make a brief reference to the award at this stage.

¶16

2(i) While awarding compensation in favour of the claimant, learned Tribunal observed that the claimant was aged 25 years, therefore, multiplier to be applied would be 17.

¶17

There can be no dispute to the multiplier since it is in consonance with the law laid down in Sarla Verma Vs.

¶18

Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.¹ ,

¶19

2(ii) The claimant had suffered permanent disability due to accident. In terms of her disability certificate, Ext.PW2/F, she was shown to be physically disabled to the extent of 75% permanent (physical impairment/speech and impairment) . The disability was stated to be irreversible. Learned Tribunal returned the factual findings that the claimant had adduced evidence to the effect that she was

¶20

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶21

2024:HHC:7855 )

¶22

¶23

post-graduate in Sanskrit and had been earning through tuitions. Learned Tribunal assessed claimant’s monthly income from tuitions at Rs. 2000/- . Her income as a home maker was notionally determined at Rs.5000/- per month. Claimant’s total income was, thus, assessed at Rs. 7,000/per month. Taking into consideration number of claimant’s family members including her child, her personal living expenses were taken as 1/3^rd of Rs.7,000/- i.e. Rs.2,333/-. After such deduction, her monthly income was taken at Rs.4667. Keeping in view the permanent disability suffered by the claimant (75%), loss of her earnings was taken as Rs. 3500/- per month.

¶24

2(iii) In view of above findings, learned Tribunal held

¶25

the claimant entitled to compensation under following

¶26

heads:-

¶27

“(i) Loss of earning : Rs.7,14,000/(Rs.3500x12x17) (ii) Pain and Sufferings : Rs.2,00,000/(iii) Medical and travelling expenses as per bills : Rs.1,24,870/(iv) Globally attendant charges through life assessed due to permanent physically disability to the extent of 75% :Rs.3,00,000/(v) Future medical expenses : Rs. 200,000/Total : Rs.15,38,870/-”

¶28

2024:HHC:7855 )

¶29

¶30

3. Upon hearing learned counsel on both sides and on considering the case record, I am of the considered view that compensation of Rs.3 lacs awarded to the appellantclaimant towards attendant charges throughout life on account of her suffering 75% permanent disability, needs to be enhanced. It is on record of the case that not only the appellant-claimant remained admitted in hospital w.e.f. 06.02.2012 to 20.02.2012 and w.e.f. 03.11.2012 to 14.11.2012, but on account of nature of injuries suffered by her, in particular, to her limbs, she would need assistance of an attendant even for doing her household chores, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant towards attendant charges by Rs.1 lac. Ordered accordingly.

¶31

4. There was no evidence on record before the learned Tribunal to award compensation of Rs.2 lacs towards future medical expenses. Rather, the evidence on record, more particularly of the doctor, who treated the appellantclaimant was to the effect that no further treatment was

¶32

2024:HHC:7855 )

¶33

¶34

required to be administered to her. Therefore, awarding of Rs.2 lacs as compensation under head future medical expenses is not justified. However, at the same time, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

¶35

to the petitioner under head loss of amenities. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head future medical expenses can be taken to have been awarded for the loss of amenities suffered by her. Ordered accordingly.

¶36

5. Nothing has been awarded to the appellantclaimant towards loss of future earnings. Loss of future earnings was required to be assessed in light of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

¶37

others² . Relevant para of which reads as under:-

¶38

“59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

¶39

2 (2017)16 SCC 680

¶40

2024:HHC:7855 )

¶41

¶42

6. In view of above, compensation amount payable to

¶43

the appellant-claimant is re-worked out as under:-

¶44

1.	Loss of earnings Rs.3500 + 1400 (40% of 3500) x x 12 x 17	Rs.9,99,600/-
2.	Painand sufferings	Rs.2,00,000/-
3.	Medicaland travelling expenses	Rs.1,24,860/-
4.	Attendant Charges	Rs.4,00,000/-
5.	Loss ofamenities of life	Rs.2,00,00/-
	Total	Rs.19,24,460/-

¶45

No other point was urged.

¶46

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The compensation amount payable to the appellant-claimant is increased to the extent indicated above. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award including interest component thereon shall remain the same. Enhancement in the amount shall also carry the same rate of interest as is awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶47

The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶48

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶49

September 4, 2024 R.Atal

Pooja Devi v. Piar Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Devi v. Piar Chand

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

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rup Lal and Others Vs Kanta Sharma and Others

Sunita Devi Vs Hrtc and Another

Mustkeen and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Garg and Garg Co. Stone Crusher Vs the State of Hp and Others

Lachhman Singh Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highway and Another