Allowed

Giani Ram v. Dharambir and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2014FAO/233/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two appeals filed by appellants Giani Ram and Maha Ram against a compromise order under the Motor Accidents Claims Act. The Court re-appraised compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a road accident with vicars for medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of earning capacity, increasing the total amount payable.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,63,300 for Giani Ram and Rs. 2,48,400 for Maha Ram, with interest on the excess portion; awards modified.

Giani Ram Vs Dharambir and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

FAO No.233 of 1991

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

FAO No.233 of 1991 Date of Decision.05.03.2014

Giani Ram

......Appellant

Versus

Dharambir and others ......Respondents

¶9

FAO No.234 of 1991 Maha Ram ......Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Dharambir and others ......Respondents

¶12

Present: Mr. Anand Kataria, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶14

Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶15

Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶16

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶17

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶18

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶19

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶20

-.-

¶21

K. KANNAN J.

¶22

The application for impleading the legal representatives of

¶23

respondent No.2 is allowed and the legal representatives of respondent

¶24

No.1 are taken on record.

¶25

Both the appeals are connected arising out of the same accident for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

-2-

¶27

FAO No.233 of 1991

¶28

suffered in a motor accident. The accident took place on 15.10.1988 when the claimant Giani Ram, who was riding the motorcycle, was returning to his village along with his brother-in-law Maha Ram who was a pillion rider, dashed against the tractor of respondent No.1 bearing registration No.HYM-2881 coming from the opposite direction. Due to the impact both of them fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal has held that the tractor of respondent No.1 was involved in the accident and the liability of satisfying the award was cast on the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.4 before the Tribunal. I have already reversed the finding of the Tribunal and allowed the appeals filed by the insurance company in FAO No.610 and 611 of 1991 giving them right of recovery against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle after satisfying the claim of the claimants. 3. The appeal in FAO No.233 of 1991 has been filed at the instance of claimant Giani Ram aged 28 years, who was working as Beldar on temporary basis in Delhi Municipal Corporation at a salary of 900/- per month and was also said to have augmenting his income from agricultural land at 1,000/-. He contended that he received serious injuries in the accident and was admitted in Bawal Hospital where he remained hospitalized from 15.10.1988 to 18.10.1988 and from there he was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak upto 02.11.1988. He claimed that he suffered a fracture of left mandible and left leg and operated thrice on leg, wire was tied around his teeth which remained for four months. He had to undergo for follow up treatment twice a month which cost his pocket ` 1,000/- per visit. He produced some

¶29

vouchers Ex.P17 to P48 and claimed that he spent ` 55,000/- on Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

FAO No.233 of 1991

¶31

-3-

¶32

medicines, conveyance and treatment. He was feeling difficulty in walking, his left leg had become short and he had difficulty in taking his food.

¶33

The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as PW5 Dr. Mudgil. He spoke to the effect that the injured Giani Ram was admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak on 19.10.1988 and he was operated for fracture of mandible, tension bend writing was done and condyler plating of left tibia was done which were removed in 1989. On clinical examination, he found that injured was suffering from limitation of motion of left knee joint, limping of gait and wasting of muscles of calf and quadriceps region. Besides, this there was restriction of mouth opening and chewing. He assessed the disability at 45%. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation simply awarded an amount of 70,000/- for the period of hospitalization, operation, expenses incurred on treatment, special diet and conveyance without dealing with every head separately. I discard the manner of assessment adopted by the Tribunal and reappraise the compensation. There was a statement by the claimant that he spent about 55,000/- for medicines, hospital charges, attendant charges, special diet and conveyance and produced the bills from Ex.P17 to P48. I will provide for the whole amount under the heads mentioned by the injured. The claimant must have suffered pain and suffering for fractures of lateral oondylex of left tibia for which plating was done to reduce the fracture and fracture of mandible for which tension bend wiring was done which were removed after a long time in the year 1989 and therefore, I will provide ` 50,000/- for pain and suffering. The doctor assessed the disability at Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

-4-

¶35

FAO No.233 of 1991

¶36

45% but there is no mention about the nature of disability whether it is permanent or temporary. It is sure that the claimant would have faced difficulties in leading his routine life on account of disability and therefore, I will provide another 50,000/- under the head loss of amenities of life. He was said to be earning 1900/- per month. I would take the disability assessed by the doctor at 45% to be 25% for the whole body which would have impaired the earning capacity of the claimant to that extent. I would take the loss of income of the claimant at 1900/-, apply a multiplier of 17 for a person who was 28 years old and assess the loss of earning capacity at 96,900/(1900x25/100x12x17). He could not have done anything during the period of his treatment for at least six months for which I will provide 11400/- for loss of income. The overall compensation payable shall be 2,63,300/-. The amount in excess over what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the manner determined by this Court in FAO No.610 of 1991.

¶37

The award passed by the Tribunal stands modified and the appeal in FAO No.233 of 1991 is allowed to the above extent.

¶38

As regards the appeal in FAO No.234 of 1991, the injured was a male of 25 years who was pillion rider at the time of accident and suffered fracture of left mandible and left leg. He remained hospitalized from 18.10.1988 to 29.10.1988 and a surgical intervention was made to reduce the fracture which confined him to bed for about a year. He claimed that he spent about ` 50,000/- on his treatment on his

¶39

medicine, diet and conveyance and produced vouchers Ex.P1 to P16 to Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶40

-5-

¶41

FAO No.233 of 1991

¶42

support his version. He was said to be owner of 12 acres of land and was also engaged in dairy farming earning about ` 2000/- from both the sources. The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as PW5, who spoke to the effect that on clinical and radiological examination, the injured was found to be suffering from old case fracture tibial condyler region left side with wasting of quadriceps and calf muscle with limping gait and restricted movement of knee joint. He assessed the disability occurred due to accident at 35%.

¶43

The Tribunal again awarded a lump sum amount of 60,000/- for all heads including loss of income, loss of earning capacity, for pain and suffering and other heads including injuries which is wholly erroneous. I will rework the compensation. There was a statement by the claimant that he spent about 50,000/- for medicines, hospital charges, attendant charges, special diet and conveyance and produced the bills from Ex.P1 to P16. I will provide for the whole amount under the heads mentioned by the injured. The claimant must have suffered pain and suffering for fractures of left tibia and fracture of mandible which confined him to bed for about a year and therefore, I will provide 50,000/- for the component of pain and suffering. The doctor assessed the disability at 35% but there is no mention about the nature of disability whether it is permanent or temporary. It is sure that the claimant would face difficulties in leading his routine life on account of disability and therefore, I will provide another 50,000/- under the head loss of amenities of life. He was said to be earning ` 2000/- per month. I would take the disability assessed by the doctor at 35% to be

¶44

20% for the whole body which would have impaired the earning capacity Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶45

-6-

¶46

FAO No.233 of 1991

¶47

of the claimant to that extent. I would take the loss of income of the claimant at 2000/-, apply a multiplier of 18 for a person who was 25 years old and assess the loss of earning capacity at 86,400/(2000x20/100x12x18). He could not have done anything during the period of his treatment for at least six months for which I will provide 12000/- for loss of income. The overall compensation payable shall be 2,48,400/-. The amount in excess over what has already been provided by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the manner determined by this Court in FAO No.610 of 1991.

¶48

The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the

¶49

above extent.

¶50

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶51

March 05, 2014 Pankaj*

¶52

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.03.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Giani Ram v. Dharambir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giani Ram v. Dharambir and Others

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

Vishnu Kumar Vs Jagir Singh

Municipal Corporation Ludhiana Vs Nachhattar Kaur and Others

Darshna Devi Vs Gobind Bhardwaj and Others

(O&M) Ram Gopal Vs Jagdish Chander

Usha Rani Vs Prem Singh Rathi

Babita Yadav Vs Dharampal