IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
Sneh Lata.
....... Appellant through Shri
J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate
with Shri Kashmir Singh
and Shri Lalit Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
The Haryana State and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(2) F.A.O.No.653 of 1988
Swaran Lata.
....... Appellant through Shri
J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate
with Shri Kashmir Singh
and Shri Lalit Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
The Haryana State and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(3) F.A.O.No.654 of 1988
Parbodh Chander.
....... Appellant through Shri
J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate
with Shri Kashmir Singh
and Shri Lalit Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
The Haryana State and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
-2-
....
(4) F.A.O.No.655 of 1988
Pushpa Devi.
....... Appellant through Shri
J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate
with Shri Kashmir Singh
and Shri Lalit Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
The Haryana State and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(5) F.A.O.No.656 of 1988
Saroj Kumari.
....... Appellant through Shri
J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate
with Shri Kashmir Singh
and Shri Lalit Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
The Haryana State and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(6) F.A.O.No.668 of 1988
Raj Kumar.
....... Appellant through Shri
J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate
with Shri Kashmir Singh
and Shri Lalit Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
The Haryana State and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
-3-
....
(7) F.A.O.No.886 of 1988
Raj Kumar and another.
....... Appellant through Shri
J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate
with Shri Kashmir Singh
and Shri Lalit Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
The Haryana State and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
(8) F.A.O.No.887 of 1988
Manoj Kumar.
....... Appellant through Shri
J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate
with Shri Kashmir Singh
and Shri Lalit Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
The Haryana State and others.
....... Respondents through Nemo.
Date of Decision: 16.10.2008
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
-4-
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned eight
appeals which have been preferred against common award dated 25.1.1988
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for short, `the
Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 53 & 54 of 6.10.1986 and 57 to 66 of
23.10.1986.
In a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 24.4.1986,
one girl child of two years lost her life while remaining occupants of jeep
bearing registration No.HID-8573 in which they were travelling received
injuries. The bus No. HRV-2752 belonging to the Haryana Roadways is
said to have hit the aforesaid jeep on Chandigarh-Ambala Road in the area
of Zirakpur.
Raj Kumar and Swaran Lata filed M.A.C.T. Case No.53 of
6.10.1986 for grant of compensation for the death of their girl, namely,
Gudia, whereas the other claim petitions were filed by the injured persons
except M.A.C.T.Case No.66 of 23.10.1986 which was preferred by
Parbodh Chander on account of damage to the jeep.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions of claimants- Kiran
Kanta, Kanta Devi, Saroj Kumari, Chander Rekha and Parbodh Chander and
allowed those of others.
There is no challenge to the issue of negligence.
No one appears for the respondents as well.
The only question which requires determination in these
appeals is as to what is the appropriate compensation that should be
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
-5-
….
awarded to the appellants.
First of all, I would take up F.A.O. No.886 of 1988 which
arises out of the claim petition preferred by the parents of the deceased
minor child of 2 years.
The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15000/-. The
appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
Although in the case of the death of a minor child of 2 years,
the normal mode of computation of compensation is not applicable as it is
difficult even to assess his or her notional income, yet, drawing support
from the judgment of the Apex Court in Manju Devi and another Versus
Musafir Paswan and another, 2005 A.C.J. 99, this Court is of the
considered opinion that a lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would be
sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It may be mentioned that in the
aforesaid case, a boy, aged 13 years, had died in an accident and their
Lordships took his notional income as Rs.15000/- per annum and applied a
multiplier of `15′ and allowed Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation to his parents.
In view of the above, the parents of the minor girl child are
held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which shall also include loss
of love and natural affection.
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
The appellant- Sneh Lata was awarded a sum of Rs.2500/- by
the Tribunal. According to PW8-Dr.Davy Olakkengil, she had tenderness in
her left groin and after ex-ray examination, a fracture of the superior and
inferior pubic rami on the left side was found. However, no permanent
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
-6-
….
disability was detected.
Although there is no permanent disability, yet, the appellant
had suffered a fracture and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate. In my opinion, it would be appropriate if a total sum
of Rs.25000/- is awarded to the appellant which shall include the
compensation on account of pain & suffering and agony. Ordered
accordingly.
F.A.O.No.653 of 1988
The appellant-Swaran Lata was granted a total sum of
Rs.2500/- (Rs.2000/- for the injuries suffered by her and Rs.500/- for pain &
suffering).
PW10-Dr.G.R.Verma had examined the appellant and found
that she was having haematoma on the left frontal region above the left orbit
and swelling & tenderness in her right wrist. According to him, she had
sustained a fracture on the right forearm.
Although there is nothing on the record to suggest that the
appellant had suffered any permanent disability, yet, she had received a
fracture on the right forearm besides other injuries. In view of this, the
compensation allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate.
Considering the nature of injuries which the appellant suffered
including the fracture, it would be just and appropriate that a sum of
Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation to her which shall include the
amount for pain & suffering and agony. Ordered accordingly.
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
-7-
….
F.A.O.No.654 of 1988
The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant
for grant of compensation on account of damage to the jeep.
A perusal of the impugned award shows that the appellant
failed to prove his ownership. Even the registration certificate of the jeep
was not brought on record. The appellant also did not step into the witness
box to state in support of his claim.
In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the conclusion recorded
by the Tribunal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
F.A.O. No.655 of 1988
The appellant-Pushpa Devi was allowed a sum of Rs.2500/- as
compensation by the Tribunal for the injuries suffered by her in the
accident.
According to PW10-Dr.G.R.Verma, who had referred to the
injuries of the appellant, she was having fracture of lower end of the left
side radius bone which was grievous in nature, besides another lacerated
would on the right fronto temporal region which was bleeding.
However, there is no proof of any permanent disability of any
kind.
Accordingly, while treating her case at par to that of the
appellants in F.A.O.Nos.652 and 653 of 1988, the appellant herein is
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation.
F.A.O.No.656 of 1988
The claim petition of the appellant-Saroj Kumari was
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
-8-
….
dismissed by the Tribunal as PW5-Dr.Davy Olakkengil observed that she
was having only pain and swelling over the left elbow and there was no
bony injury.
In my opinion, the approach of the Tribunal is correct and does
not require any interference.
F.A.O.No.668 of 1988
The appellant-Raj Kumar was awarded a total sum of
Rs.20,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Feeling dis-
satisfied, he has preferred this appeal.
PW1-Dr.Shiv Inder Singh Gill had found a fracture of right
shaft femur of the appellant, who was an Assistant Sub Inspector in
Wireless Section of Punjab Police. This witness had found that the appellant
had suffered 25% permanent partial disability as a result of the injuries
sustained by him.
Keeping in view the fracture and the disability suffered by the
appellant, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate.
Having regard to the aforesaid, it would be just and appropriate
if the appellant is awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- for the permanent
disability and Rs.30,000/- are allowed for pain & suffering, attendant and
medicines etc. It is accordingly ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to
receive a consolidated compensation of Rs.80,000/-.
F.A.O.No.887 of 1988
The appellant-Manoj Kumar was awarded a total sum of
F.A.O.No.652 of 1988
-9-
….
Rs.500/- for the lacerated wound on the occipital region with bleeding
present.
PW10-Dr.G.R.Verma had found the aforesaid injury of the
appellant to be simple in nature with no disability of any kind.
However, in my opinion, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side.
Considering the fact that the appellant had sustained injury in
the accident and also suffered pain on that account, the amount of
compensation of Rs.500/- as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.5000/-.
The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the
appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petitions till the date of realisation.
The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest
shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal.
Consequently, the impugned award is modified to the aforesaid
extent and F.A.O.Nos.652, 653, 655, 668, 886 & 887 of 1988 are allowed,
whereas F.A.O.Nos. 654 and 656 of 1988 are dismissed.
October 16,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge