Partly allowed

Manohar Lal v. Naresh

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Mar 2014FAO/1739/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant. The Court held that while medical and loss of income awards were adequate, compensation for pain and suffering and permanent disability required enhancement based on a 'rule of thumb' formula.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,69,055 along with statutory interest at 6% per annum.

Manohar Lal Vs Naresh — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.1739 of 2002

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1739 of 2002

¶5

Date of Decision: March 26, 2014

Manohar Lal

…Appellant

Versus

Naresh alias Nunia and others …Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Co.

¶13

¶14

Amol Rattan Singh, J.(Oral)

¶15

This is a case in which the appellant suffered an injury on account of a motor vehicle accident, while he was riding a scooter along with a pillion rider, which was hit from behind by the offending vehicle, i.e. jeep bearing Regd. No.HR-16A-0412, on 04.12.1999.

¶16

Though his contention before the learned Motor Accident

¶17

Claims Tribunal (in short the “Tribunal”), was that his leg had been shortened by 2 inches and that he cannot walk properly, there was no finding of such shortening; though, as per the medical certificate duly proved before the Tribunal, he had suffered an orthopedic disability of 55% on account of injuries to his leg.

¶18

His income was assessed to be Rs.3,000/- per month, taking him to be a labourer and compensation was granted to him under the

¶19

following heads:

¶20

Medical expenses: Rs.5055/Loss of Income: Rs.10,000/-

¶21

Chander Vikas 2014.04.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

FAO No.1739 of 2002

¶23

-2-

¶24

Special diet:	Rs.10,000/-
Pain and suffering:	Rs.5000/-
Transportation expenses:	Rs.5000/-
Attendant expenses:	Rs.4000/-
Permanent disability:	Rs.45,000/-

¶25

In all, a total compensation of Rs.84,055/- was granted to the appellant.

¶26

He, consequently filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶27

After hearing both learned counsel, it is held as detailed hereinafter.

¶28

Since there is no specific averment, even in the grounds of appeal, with regard to inability of the appellant to earn his livelihood, the compensation on account of loss of income would have to be restricted to the period that he was actually under treatment. As per the evidence of the treating doctor, PW-3, the appellant was admitted to hospital on 04.12.1999 and discharged on 05.12.1999 after his leg was put into a POP cast which was eventually removed. He intermittently visited the hospital thereafter, and finally on 29.11.2000. As such, the loss of income of Rs.10,000/- seems to have been appropriately granted by the learned Tribunal.

¶29

As regards the other heads, medical expenses were granted on the basis of actual bills produced and as such nothing further needs to be enhanced under that head. Rs.10,000/- for special diet also seems to have been adequately awarded. On account of pain and suffering, considering that the appellant suffered a fracture and was unable to do

¶30

Chander Vikas 2014.04.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

FAO No.1739 of 2002

¶32

-3-

¶33

his day to day work and chores on that account, and obviously suffered actual pain, in my opinion Rs.5,000/- is inadequate compensation which needs to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and is accordingly enhanced.

¶34

Transportation expenses of Rs.5,000/- also seem to have been adequately awarded, as have attendant charges of Rs.4000/-. However, in my opinion, compensation on account of permanent disability of 55%, a sum of Rs.45,000/- seems to be highly inadequate.

¶35

Mr. Saini, learned counsel for respondent No.3, very fairly states that in the judgment dated 03.07.2006, passed in FAO No.5505 of 2005, titled as Piara Singh and others Vs. Satpal Kumar and others, Rs.2,000/- per percentage point of disability has been awarded by a Division Bench of this Court, which I feel is a proper “rule of thumb formula”, in this regard. Accordingly, in my opinion, Rs.1,10,000/under this head should be awarded and is so awarded to the appellant, i.e. an increase of Rs.65,000/- over what was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶36

Consequently, the total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.84,055/- to Rs.1,69,055/-, along with statutory interest @ 6% per annum, on the enhanced amount, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

¶37

The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

¶38

March 26, 2014 vcgarg

¶39

(AMOL RATTAN SINGH) JUDGE

¶40

Chander Vikas 2014.04.11 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Manohar Lal v. Naresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Lal v. Naresh

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

Khazan Singh Vs Mirza Singh

Sant Kaur Vs Ved Parkash

Piara Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harnek Singh Vs Election Tribunal & Anr.

Director ,Primary Education Hy. Vs Suresh Kumar & Anr.

Mam Chand Vs Rajesh Kumar and Ors.