LPA No. 395 of 1998. Case: B. Lal Singh Alias Lal Singh Vs Vinod Kumar and Others. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | LPA No. 395 of 1998 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Paul Saini, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 |
| Judges | Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. and Augustine George Masih, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act |
| Judgement Date | July 18, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Augustine George Masih, J., (At Chandigarh)
-
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant seeking further enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 08.07.1998 enhancing the compensation to 1,37,000/- from 90,000/-, as was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-claimant was coming on his scooter on 04.04.1991 and reached Tangri Bridge where there was rush of traffic and a blockade. He stopped his scooter in front of Car No. HR-29-0051. Truck No. HRX-3916 driven by Yadh Ram-respondent No. 3 hit the stationery car at high speed. Due to the said impact, the car hit the appellant-claimant. He fell down and suffered multiple injuries. He was rushed to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh where he had to be operated upon thrice but his leg could not be saved and had to be amputated. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, which, after trial, assessed total compensation of 90,000/-, which, on appeal, has been enhanced by the learned Single Judge to 1,37,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.
-
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-claimant was aged about 36 years when he met with an accident, which resulted in amputation of his right leg above the knee. He remained admitted in hospital from 04.04.1991 to 09.05.1991 and had to undergo three surgeries. It has been proved that the appellant suffered permanent disability of 80% of his right limb, because of which, he lost his job. Referring to the evidence led by the claimant-appellant, counsel submits that the appellant was paid salary of 1,775/- while working under PW-4 Subhash Mahajan besides other benefits like bonus, provident fund and free conveyance. Besides that he had also been looking after the farm of one Sh. Rakesh Mohindra PW-5, who was paying him 1,000/- per month for the said work. He, on this basis, contends that the monthly income of the appellant would come to 2,775/- in cash. The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have not computed the compensation payable to the claimant-injured by applying the multiplier to the loss of monthly income of the appellant nor has said multiplier been applied for determination of the loss of future earning capacity rather a lump sum amount has been assessed under the said head...
To continue reading
Request your trial