IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O NO. 3317 of 2007
Decided On : 02.12.2008
Amandeep Kaur
...Appellant
versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present : Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Addl. A G, Punjab.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
This appeal is at the instance of the injured-claimant,
who is dis-satisfied with the award dated 13.12.2006 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, granting her
compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition.
The facts giving rise to this claim petition are that the
appellant, who at the time of the accident was 10 years old
student, was travelling from Chandigarh to Nawan Shahar along
with her mother on 23.02.2003 in Punjab Roadways bus bearing
registration No. PB-12C-9802. The bus was being allegedly driven
in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and when it
reached near Burnab Kalan Chowk, the bus driver lost control
over the bus due to which it struck against a tree, resulting into
F.A.O NO. 3317 of 2007 -2-
injuries to several passengers, including the appellant minor girl,
who suffered fractures on both the legs. The appellant was
rushed to General Hospital, Chandigarh where she remained
hospitalised for two days and thereafter was taken to some other
hospital at Amritsar. The appellant filed this claim petition
seeking compensation of Rs.10 lacs, inter-alia, on account of the
pecuniary, as well as, non-pecuniary damages suffered by her. In
the absence of medical bills or the evidence in relation to the
actual loss, the Tribunal, proceeded to determine the non-
pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs.12500/- and thereafter, has
determined a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- along
with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
It may be true that in the case of a minor school going
child, there is no loss of actual or future income and the
prospects in relation to chances of advancement also can not be
easily assessed. In such a situation, compensation has to be
determined on the basis of facts and peculiar circumstances of
the case in hand.
Admittedly, the appellant suffered fracture in both the
legs. The recovery and return to normalcy must have taken many
months. It may be true that while undergoing recovery in a case
of fracture of both the legs, regular medication may not as such
be required, but it would certainly burden the family or the victim
with an additional liability to arrange a helping hand. It would
have been next to impossible for the appellant to move from the
F.A.O NO. 3317 of 2007 -3-
bed without the assistance of family members or some other
helping hand. The magnitude of the pain and suffering has to be
assessed from the fact that the appellant was a 10 years old
minor child, who witnessed and suffered the accident and went
through unexplainable mental and physical agony. Even though
the appellant might have fully recovered, there is bound to be a
sense of some deficiency in the performance of physical
activities, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have kept in view the
estimated loss to be suffered by her in terms of academic career
and matrimonial prospects. Taking into consideration all these
components of non-pecuniary damages that the Tribunal ought to
have assessed the lump-sum amount of compensation. In my
considered view, not less than Rs.1 lac or Rs.2 lac should have
been awarded by the Tribunal, besides interest @ 9% per annum,
which is the normal rate of interest in such like cases.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The
impugned award under appeal is modified to the extent that the
appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lac along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the actual realization thereof.
DECEMBER 02, 2008 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE