Partly allowed

Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2008FAO/3317/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court enhanced the compensation for a 10-year-old minor from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 and increased the interest rate to 9% per annum. The court held that non-pecuniary damages must account for physical agony, mental suffering, and prospective academic and matrimonial losses.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing.

Amandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

F.A.O NO. 3317 of 2007 Decided On : 02.12.2008

Amandeep Kaur

...Appellant

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶9

Present : Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Addl. A G, Punjab.

¶11

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This appeal is at the instance of the injured-claimant, who is dis-satisfied with the award dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, granting her compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶13

The facts giving rise to this claim petition are that the appellant, who at the time of the accident was 10 years old student, was travelling from Chandigarh to Nawan Shahar along with her mother on 23.02.2003 in Punjab Roadways bus bearing registration No. PB-12C-9802. The bus was being allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and when it reached near Burnab Kalan Chowk, the bus driver lost control over the bus due to which it struck against a tree, resulting into

¶14

F.A.O NO. 3317 of 2007

¶15

-2-

¶16

injuries to several passengers, including the appellant minor girl, who suffered fractures on both the legs. The appellant was rushed to General Hospital, Chandigarh where she remained hospitalised for two days and thereafter was taken to some other hospital at Amritsar. The appellant filed this claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10 lacs, inter-alia, on account of the pecuniary, as well as, non-pecuniary damages suffered by her. In the absence of medical bills or the evidence in relation to the actual loss, the Tribunal, proceeded to determine the nonpecuniary loss to the extent of Rs.12500/- and thereafter, has determined a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

¶17

It may be true that in the case of a minor school going child, there is no loss of actual or future income and the prospects in relation to chances of advancement also can not be easily assessed. In such a situation, compensation has to be determined on the basis of facts and peculiar circumstances of the case in hand.

¶18

Admittedly, the appellant suffered fracture in both the legs. The recovery and return to normalcy must have taken many months. It may be true that while undergoing recovery in a case of fracture of both the legs, regular medication may not as such be required, but it would certainly burden the family or the victim with an additional liability to arrange a helping hand. It would have been next to impossible for the appellant to move from the

¶19

-3-

¶20

F.A.O NO. 3317 of 2007

¶21

bed without the assistance of family members or some other helping hand. The magnitude of the pain and suffering has to be assessed from the fact that the appellant was a 10 years old minor child, who witnessed and suffered the accident and went through unexplainable mental and physical agony. Even though the appellant might have fully recovered, there is bound to be a sense of some deficiency in the performance of physical activities, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have kept in view the estimated loss to be suffered by her in terms of academic career and matrimonial prospects. Taking into consideration all these components of non-pecuniary damages that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the lump-sum amount of compensation. In my considered view, not less than Rs.1 lac or Rs.2 lac should have been awarded by the Tribunal, besides interest @ 9% per annum, which is the normal rate of interest in such like cases.

¶22

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award under appeal is modified to the extent that the appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lac along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual realization thereof.

¶23

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶24

DECEMBER 02, 2008 shalini

Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Bhan etc. Vs Jagdish etc.

Bishan Singh etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hasina and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Anwal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Roshni Devi etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Chhotey Lal Vs Estate Officer HUDA and Ors.