IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT JAMMU CIMA NO. 08 of 2005 Vijay Laxmi petitioner Amarjeet Singh and anr respondents
!Mr. B. D. Subdan, Advocate
^Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate with Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate
MR.JUSTICE J.P.SINGH, JUDGE
Date : 20/11/2008
:Judgment :
______________________________________________________________________
Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded to her as compensation by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal Jammu, for the injuries she had sustained on
July 13, 2000 when she had been hit by brashly and
negligently driven truck no. JK02L-0945 by Amarjeet Singh
respondent, Mrs. Vijay Laxmi appellant has filed this appeal
seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
Appellant’s learned counsel Mr. B. D. Sundan
submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing appellant’s
loss of amenities of life at Rs. 30,000/- and for pain and
sufferings at Rs. 20,000/-. According to him the evidence
produced by the appellant would warrant substantial increase
ion the amount of compensation to which the appellant would
be entitled to.
Insurance Company’s counsel Mr. R. K. Gupta justifies the
award saying that the Tribunal’s award for an amount of Rs.
61,935/- reflected just amount of compensation and no
increase therein is warranted.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel
for the parties, gone through the award of the Tribunal and
the opinion of the Chairman Standing Medical Board,
Government Medical College and Associated Hospitals
Jammu.
As the short question which arises for consideration in
this appeal is only regarding the assessment of just
compensation for the injuries received by the appellant in the
motor vehicular accident arising out of negligent driving of
vehicle No. JK02L-0945 by its driver Amarjeet Singh,
respondent no.1, so only few facts are needed to be noticed
for resolution of the question.
Appellant’s age at the time of the accident is stated to
be around 40 years. While rejecting her claim that she had
been earning Rs. 4000/- per month by stitching clothes, the
Tribunal has not assessed her income for the contribution she
had been meeting to the family as a house wife. The Tribunal
has assessed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for
loss of amenities of life but without furnishing any reasons in
support thereof.
In order to assess just compensation payable either to
dependents of the deceased or to an injured victim of the
motor vehicular accident, in terms of Section 168 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal is required first to
assess the monthly income of the deceased/injured and it is
only when such assessment is made, of course supported by
reasons for such assessment, that the Tribunal may proceed
further to assess the compensation in terms of Section 168 of
the Act. The Tribunal shall, while making assessment of
compensation, keep in mind the parameters which the
Parliament in its wisdom has prescribed in the Second
Schedule issued under Section 163-A of the Act for
assessment of compensation for third party fatal
accident/injury cases claims.
The Tribunal does not appear to have taken into
account the above mentioned parameters and has arrived at a
figure as compensation for loss of amenities of life, which
finding of the Tribunal is nothing bit arbitrary, which may
not warrant acceptance.
Keeping in view the fact that the appellant had received
injuries in the year 2000, I do not find it appropriate to
remand the case to the Tribunal for assessment of the
compensation afresh and would consider appellant’s case on
the evidence which had been adduced before the Tribunal to
assess just compensation.
While assessing compensation in case of bodily injury,
the Tribunal should consider all relevant factors so as to
enable the injured to be put in the same condition as if he/she
had not sustained any injury. The principle of restitution-
inintegrum
should always remain in the mind of the tribunal
while assessing compensation under various heads.
Going by the law as settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, reported as 2001
ACJ, 1735 and taking the monthly income of the appellant,
who is a house wife, at Rs. 3000/- being her contribution to
the family, and keeping in view the 15% permanent disability
which she had suffered because of sustaining grievous
injuries in the motor vehicular accident and above all that she
has to live the life of a disabled limping women all through
her life, loss of amenities of life to her is assessed by taking
16, the prescribed multiplier for the age of persons like the
appellant, as it so appears in the Second Schedule, at Rs.
38,400/-, which when rounded off would come to Rs.
39,000/-.
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain and
sufferings too appears to be on the lower side. In view of the
facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the
principle of restitution-in-integrum, I am of the opinion that
as against an amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
to the appellant for her pain and sufferings, an amount of Rs.
25,000/- would be just compensation.
The total compensation to which the appellant would be
entitled to comes to Rs. 75,935/- which includes an amount
of Rs. 6,935/- being spent by the appellant for her treatment
and an amount of Rs. 5000/- spent by her for her special diet.
For all what has been said above, this appeal therefore
succeeds and is accordingly allowed modifying the
Tribunal’s award to be an award of Rs. 75,935/- along with
interest as granted by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of
compensation shall be deposited by the Insurance Company
before this Court within a period of four weeks, which on its
deposit shall be released in favour of the appellant, on her
proper identification.
(J.P.Singh)
Judge