Jitender Vs Dashrath and Ors.

Present: Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocat e for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate a nd Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advoca t e for respondent No.3 – National Insurance Compan y Limited.

¶12

¶13

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

¶14

By way of present appeal, challeng e has been laid to an awar d dated 27.04.200 9 passed by the learned Mo t or Accident Claims Tribunal , Bhiwani (for bre v ity, “the Tribunal”), whereb y an amount of Rs. 16,000/ - was awarded as c ompensation to the appella n t/claimant along with interes t @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries s u ffered by him in a vehicula r accident.

¶15

Brief Facts

¶16

[2] T h e appellant, Jitender, being injured filed a claim petitio n before Ld. Tribun a l praying for grant of compe n sation on account of injurie s suffered by him in a motor vehicular ac c ident which took place o n 11.11.2007 while alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 /

¶17

driver.

¶18

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

1

¶20

FAO-5725-2009 (O&M)

¶21

[3] A fter going through the clai m petition and evaluating th e evidence led by b oth the parties, Ld. Tribunal arrived at a conclusion tha t the accident occurred on account of ras h and negligent driving o f respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded co m pensation in the followin g

¶22

manner:-

¶23

S.No.	Heads of Claim	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Medicine	Rs. 4,000/-
2.	Hospitalization	Rs. 4,000/-
3.	Special diet, Transportation Attendant Charges &	Rs. 4,000/-
4.	Pain and Suffering	Rs. 4,000/-
	Total	Rs. 16,000/-

¶24

Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitione r was fastened up o n the driver, the owner and the insurance company jointl y and severally.

¶25

[4] Being aggrieved against the a w ard dated 27.04.2009, th e present appeal h as been preferred by the appellant for enhancement o f compensation. F acts as specified in the c l aim petition and the issu e regarding neglig e nce of the driver as held b y the Tribunal are not bein g assailed, therefo r e, for the sake of brevity, t h ose are not being repeate d here.

¶26

Arguments

¶27

[5] Learned counsel for the ap p ellant submitted that n o compensation has been awarded by the Ld. T ribunal on account of loss o f income and loss of enjoyment for life. He f u rther contended that due t o shock and injuri e s sustained by the appellan t , he could not collect all th e medical bills at t h e relevant time and as su c h, compensation granted fo r medical treatme n t, hospitalization besides special diet, transportation ,

¶28

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

2

¶30

FAO-5725-2009 (O&M)

¶31

attendant charges as well as pain and suff e ring were very meager an d liable to be enha n ced.

¶32

[6] On t h e other hand, learned cou n sel representing responden t No. 3/ Insuranc e Company submitted that a ppellant/claimant had bee n adequately com p ensated and as such the i m pugned award warrants n o interference and t he present appeal is liable to be dismissed. [7] I hav e heard learned counsel for the parties and perused th e paper-book of the case. I find force in the a rguments advanced by th e learned counsel f o r the appellant/claimant.

¶33

Discussion

¶34

On the aspect of enhancement of compensation

¶35

Assessment under “Medical expenses/Hospitalization”

¶36

[8] To pr o ve his case, appellant tend e red in the evidence copy o f MLR as Ex.P5; c o py of outdoor ticket as Ex.P 6 ; medical bills as Mark A1 t o Mark A6.

¶37

[8.1] In the present case, appellan t /claimant received multipl e fractures as well a s injuries on his chest, both legs and hands. As per ML R (Ex.P5) he rema i ned admitted in general ho s pital, Bhiwani till 14.11.200 7 and thereafter w a s shifted to Anand Nursing Home, where he was operate d upon his left ha n d and right leg. Even tho u gh appellant could produc e medical bills am o unting to Rs. 3,234/- only ( M ark A1 to A6) but keeping i n mind the cost fa c tor prevalent at the time of m otor vehicular accident an d treatment besid e s need of medicines duri n g rehabilitation period, th e compensation un d er this head needs to be re a ssessed. The aforesaid vie w finds force from t h e fact that due to shock an d mental agony on account o f accident, a pers o n cannot be presumed to b e vigilant enough to collect al l

¶38

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

3

¶40

FAO-5725-2009 (O&M)

¶41

the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes, t h us, compensation under thi s head is assessed as Rs. 50,000/-.

¶42

Assessment under “loss of income”

¶43

[9] Learned Tribunal failed to assess loss of income of injured o n the ground that t he appellant failed to bring on record any documentar y evidence to prov e his income. However, it is an admitted fact that appellan t was 25 years o f age at the time of acci d ent and, in the nature o f proceedings in Motor Accident Claims, being s ummary in nature, evidenc e in strict sense i s not required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case o f

¶44

“Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.” , reported a s (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in absence of proof o f income, the mini m um wage notification can b e a yardstick but at the sam e time cannot be absolute one to fix the incom e of the deceased and som e guesswork is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerp t thereof is reprod u ced hereunder:-

¶45

“…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification ca n be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absol u te one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of g u esswork is required to be done. But at the same time th e guesswork for assessing the income of deceased shou l d not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary eviden c e to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same do e s not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wa g e while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased w ho has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around R s . 15,000/- per month……”

¶46

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

4

¶48

FAO-5725-2009 (O&M)

¶49

[9.1] Ther e fore, this Court in its hum b le opinion and after giving anxious thought to the facts and circumst a nces of the present cas e conservatively a s sesses the notional income of the appellant/claimant @ 3250/- per mont h (Rs. 108.33 per day). No w , as per MLR (Ex.P5) th e appellant remain e d hospitalized for 15 days, thus, loss of income durin g hospitalization is a ssessed as Rs. 1625/- (Rs. 108.33 x 15). [9.2] Furth e rmore, while considering t h e question of compensatio n under the head o f “loss of future income” in vi e w of lack of any evidence t o prove permanent disability of the appellant/cl a imant, this issue warrants n o interference.

¶50

Assessment under “other pecuniary heads”

¶51

[10] Admi t tedly, the injured was bed-ridden as he was operated upon and would have definitely went for hi s post-operative care. Thus, compensation gr a nted for special diet, conve y ance and attendant charge s as Rs.4,000/- is v ery less. Therefore, compensation granted under thes e heads is re-asse s sed @ Rs. 1,00,000/-

¶52

Assessment under “non-pecuniary heads”

¶53

[11] In th e present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claiman t suffered injuries f or which he went into the ph a se of obtaining treatment. I n injury cases compensation for mental agony a s well as pain and sufferin g cannot be asse s sed with mathematical ce r tainty and the fact that n o amount of comp e nsation can restore the inj u red person’s physical fram e and eradicate or ameliorate the agony suffe r ed by the injured, therefore, the compensatio n under this head is reassess e d as Rs. 70,000/-.

¶54

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

5

¶56

FAO-5725-2009 (O&M)

¶57

Conclusion

¶58

[12] In vi e w of what has been d iscussed hereinabove, th e appellant/claima n t shall be entitled for gr a nt of compensation in th e following manner : -

¶59

S.No.	Na ture	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Los 162 s of Income (Rs. 3,250+ 5) Rs.	Rs. 4875/-
2.	Me dical Expenses/Hospitalizatio n	Rs. 50,000/-
3.	Pa in and Suffering	Rs. 70,000/-
4.	Co pec mpensation under uniary heads other	Rs. 1,00,000/-
	To tal Compensation	Rs. 2,24,875/-
	Am ount Awarded by the Tribu nal	Rs. 16,000/-
	En hanced Compensation	Rs. 2,08,875/-

¶60

[13] The g rant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable an d just in view of th e observation made by the H o n’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a s u bsequent judgment titled a s Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Naryana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhan c ed to 9% per annum on th e amount of com p ensation awarded to the claimant from the date o f institution of clai m petition till its realization. Needless to mention here tha t the amount of co m pensation already paid to t h e claimant shall be deducte d from the enhanc e d compensation.

¶61

[14] In vie w of the aforesaid modificati o n, the present appeal stand s disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applicati o n(s) is any, shall also stan d disposed of.

¶62

September 12, 2 sanjay 025	(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶63

SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37

¶64

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

6

Jitender v. Dashrath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender v. Dashrath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Punjab Waqf Board Vs Sarwan Ram

Harbans Singh and Ors. Vs District Revenue Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Collector and Anr.

Harnek Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Lakha Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Suman and Ors. Vs Dashrath and Ors.