Allowed

Ankur Sharma v. Irfan@Kallu and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Apr 2010FAO/4734/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal disposed allowing enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2,52,674 to Rs. 5,86,674 for a minor with 90% disability (leg amputation), adding Rs. 3,34,000 for loss of future income, pain and suffering, and marriage prospects with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 3,34,000 carrying interest at 7% per annum; total liability fixed at Rs. 5,86,674/.

Ankur Sharma Vs Irfan@Kallu and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

FAO No. 4734 of 2009 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 4734 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.4.2010

¶4

Master Ankur Sharma, minor through Mansa Ram Sharma

¶5

................Appellant

¶6

vs.

¶7

Irfan @ Kallu and others

¶8

.................Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶10

Present: Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate for Sh. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

Sh. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance company.

¶12

K.C. Puri, J. (Oral)

¶13

There is a delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application.

¶14

This is an appeal directed by minor aged 11 years for enhancement of compensation in respect of injury sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident.

¶15

Learned Tribunal after adjudication, accepted the claim petition and granted an amount of Rs.2,52,674/-, the details of which is given as under:-

¶16

Medical bills & transportation bills - Rs.1,12,674/-

¶17

On account of permanent disability - Rs.1,20,000/-

¶18

On account of pain and suffering - Rs. 20,000/______________ Total Rs.2,52,674/_______________

¶19

FAO No. 4734 of 2009 -2-

¶20

As per evidence on the file, the petitioner suffered 90% disability and his right leg has been amputated. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is on extreme lower side. The Tribunal has not taken into account that a young boy of 11 years has to spend whole of his life without right leg. In this case, the Tribunal should have assessed the amount of loss of his future income.

¶21

Even a labourer earns Rs.3,000/- per month. So, the loss of income, taking into account the cumulative effect, can be taken to the extent of 50%. So, the loss of monthly income comes to Rs.1,500/and the yearly loss of income comes to Rs.18,000/-. The multiplier at this age in my view should be 18. So, in these circumstances, by applying the multiplier of 18, the claimant is held entitled to claim Rs.3,24,000/- (18,000 X 18), on account of loss of future income. The amount of Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal on account of pain and suffering in respect of sustaining injury of 90% disability is mere a mockery. The amount stands enhanced to Rs.1 lac in this respect. Another amount of Rs.50,000/- stands allowed on account of loss of marriage prospectus. So, in this manner, the claimant is held entitled to claim Rs.5,86,674/-, as detailed below:-

¶22

1.Medical bills & transportation bills	- Rs.1,12,674/-
2.On account of loss of income due to disability	- Rs.3,24,000/-
3.On account of pain and suffering	- Rs.1,00,000/-
4.Loss of marriage prospectus	- Rs. 50,000/-
Total	Rs.5,86,674/-

¶23

FAO No. 4734 of 2009 -3-

¶24

So, the claimant is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.3,34,000/- more in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. This enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till payment. The liability to pay the enhanced amount shall be the same as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶25

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶26

21.4.2010 chugh

¶27

( K.C. Puri ) Judge

Ankur Sharma v. Irfan@Kallu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Sharma v. Irfan@Kallu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balwant Kaur and Ors.

Rafool Chand Vs Ravi Kumar and Ors.

Nihar Vs Mahinder & Ors.

Nathi Ram etc. Vs Diwa Kanwar @ Kalawati

Rohtash Dass Vs Umrao

M/S Kapeeshwar Estates P. Ltd. Vs Balbir & Ors.