Partly allowed

Firoz Alam v. Raj Kumar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2019FAO/5158/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this First Appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor appellant who suffered a 40% disability (amputation of forefoot) in a motor accident. Applying Supreme Court precedents, the court increased the award to Rs. 7,23,872, payable with 9% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,43,872 to Rs. 7,23,872; interest set at 9% per annum.

Firoz Alam Vs Raj Kumar & Ors. — Medical Negligence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

F.A.O No. 5158 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

F.A.O No. 5158 of 2011 Date of decision:- 19.08.2019

Firoz Alam

...Appellant

Versus

Raj Kumar & others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present:Mr. P.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent No. 3

¶14

RITU BAHRI J. (Oral)

¶15

The present appeal has been preferred by the injured/claimantappellant (for short 'the appellant'), seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short, 'the Tribunal') to the tune of Rs.2,43,872/- along with interest @ 7.5 per cent from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount, vide impugned award dated 19.03.2011.

¶16

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶17

As per claimants, Aash Mohammad (09 years) and appellantFiroz Alam (06 years) accompanied by their father Jahir Hassan were going to Madrasa and when they reached near Vijay colony on bye pass road around 2.30 P.M then respondent No. 1 came while driving truck No. HR37-A-5041 in a rash and negligent manner and also at high speed and struck against them after coming on wrong side of the road. Due to the impact, GAURAV ARORA 2019.10.14 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

F.A.O No. 5158 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

they received multiple and grievous injuries and they were taken to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar where Aash Mohammad remained admitted for 20 days and appellant remained admitted for one month. His left leg was amputated and F.I.R No. 692 dated 03.12.2009 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered against respondent No. 1 in P.S City,Yamuna Nagar.

¶21

The claimants proved the negligence of the driver by producing Ganga Ram, Ahlmad as P.W.4 who has brought the summoned record of criminal case titled State v. Ram Kumar arising out of the above mentioned F.I.R and has testified the copies of report under Section 173Cr.P.C Ex P- 29, site plan Ex P-30. Further the claimant produced Dr.Vandana, Medical Officer, Gabba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar who has testified that appellant was having crushed injury on left foot and thereafter, his fore foot was amputated by Dr. K.B. Gupta, Orthopaedic Surgeon. She has proved the MLR of patient/claimant Ex P-20.

¶22

COMPENSATION ASSESSED BY MACT

¶23

HEAD	COMPENSATION AMOUNT
Pain and suffering and expenses on treatment (including medicines implants etc.)	Rs.20,000/-
Compensation for disability resulting into loss of income & loss of enjoyment of life	Rs.1,00,000/-
On account of treatment	Rs.23,872/-
On account of 40% disability	Rs.80,000/-
TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED:-	Rs.2,43,872/-

¶24

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal

¶26

has erred in awarding the compensation to the appellant to the tune of Rs.2,43,872/- only, as the appellant had suffered multiple injuries including GAURAV ARORA 2019.10.14 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

F.A.O No. 5158 of 2011

¶28

-3-

¶29

amputation of forefoot and remained in hospital for one month. He is not able to walk properly and cannot drive and has become disabled to the extent of 40%.

¶30

Reference has been further made to a judgment of Hon'ble the

¶31

Supreme Court in a case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 295 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down a criteria for awarding compensation in disability case suffered by the injured, which reads as under:-

¶32

“12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick.

¶33

In the facts of the present case, as per disability certificate Ex PW9/A, the disability was assessed as 40% . The appellant remained in hospital for one month

¶34

RE-ASSESSED COMPENSATION

¶35

GAURAV ARORA 2019.10.14 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

F.A.O No. 5158 of 2011

¶37

-4-

¶38

In view of the above judgments, the compensation is re-

¶39

assessed as under:-

¶40

HEAD		COMPENSATION AMOUNT
Pain and suffering		Rs.2,00,000/-
40% Disability		Rs.4,00,000/-
Loss of enjoyment of life		Rs.1,00,000/-
Expenses on treatment		Rs.23,872/-
TOTAL COMPENSA AWARDED:-	TION	Rs.7,23,872/-
ENHANCED AMOUNT COMPENSATION	OF	Rs.7,23,872-Rs.2,43,872=Rs.4,80,000/-

¶41

The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- shall be payable within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appellant shall also get interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4528-2019 titled as Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara vs. Shyam Singh Varma and ors, decided on 01.05.2019 . The remaining conditions of disbursal of amount and recovery rights shall remain unaltered.

¶42

Accordingly, the award stands modified to the above extent and the present appeal is partly allowed.

¶43

August 19, 2019 ( RITU BAHRI ) G Arora JUDGE

¶44

GAURAV ARORA 2019.10.14 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Firoz Alam v. Raj Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Alam v. Raj Kumar & Ors.

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

(O&M) Chhote Khan etc. Vs Girdhari Lal

Bhupinder Singh Vs Land Acquisition Collector

Bhupinderpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Deputy Chief Engineer, Cons.-Ii Northern Rly.Chd. Vs Sarwan Singh and Ors.

Deputy Chief Engineer, Cons.-Ii Northern Rly.Chd. Vs Baldeep Singh and Ors.

Deputy Chief Engineer, Cons.-Ii Northern Rly.Chd. Vs Swaran Singh & Ors.