AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant appeal is directed against Award dated 9.3.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, District Solan (HP) in
M.A.C. Petition No.:- 38ADJ-II/2 of 2015, titled Sh. Roop Lal versus Shyam Lal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,19,630/-
alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization has been awarded in favour of
respondent No.1-petitioner (hereinafter, ‘petitioner’) and present appellant-Insurance Company has been held liable to indemnify the petitioner.
Briefly stated the facts as emerge from record are that on 6.12.2013 at about 6.45 am, petitioner was traveling in a vehicle bearing registration No.
HP-11A-1400 to Bagga. When the vehicle reached at Torti, deceased Shyam Lal could not control the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving and it
fell down from the hill at a distance of 150 feet, causing multiple injuries to the petitioner. FIR No. 11 dated 6.12.2013 was registered at Police Station
Bagga. Initially, petitioner was taken to J.P. Hospital, Bagga and then to PHC, Darlaghat, from where he was referred to IGMC Shimla, where he
remained admitted from 7.12.2013 to 17.12.2013. Allegedly, petitioner remained under treatment from IGMC Shimla and Fortis Hospital, Mohali and
spent Rs.3.00 Lakh on his treatment, transportation, attendant and special diet charges. Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 Lakh, on account of serious injuries sustained by him in
the motor accident, details of which are given herein above. Petitioner also claimed that he was aged about 47 years and was earning Rs.50,000/- per
month from daily, farming and agricultural pursuits.
Respondents No. 2(a) to 2(e), while admitting factum with regard to accident, denied that vehicle in question was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner. Aforesaid respondents also claimed that in case, Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation,
liability to pay, if any, is of the appellant-Insurance Company.
Appellant-Insurance Company refuted the claim of the petitioner and denied that monthly income of the petitioner was Rs.50,000/- per month.
Appellant-Insurance Company also denied that the accident took place near Torti on 6.12.2013 at about 6.45 am and claimed that the amount of
compensation claimed by petitioner is highly exaggerated.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for determination by the learned Tribunal below on 2.4.2016:
“1. Whether on dated 6-12-2013, at about 6:45 a.m. at place near Torti Temple Bagga, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P, petitioner sustained multiple
injuries due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased Shyam Lal of a vehicle bearing No. HP-11A-1400, as alleged? ...OPP
If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the
respondents? ... OPP
Whether the petition is not maintainable? ...OPR
Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident? ... OPR
Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of Insurance Policy,
as alleged? ...OPR
Reliefâ€
Subsequently, learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence led on record by the respective parties, allowed the petition and awarded a sum of
Rs. 4,19,630/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum, under following heads:
Pecuniary damages
i) Loss of future income Rs.1,20,960/-
ii) Medical Expenses: Rs.38,670/-
iii) Transportation Charges: Rs.88,000/-
iv) Attendant charges: Rs.11,000/-
v) Special diet charges: Rs.11,000/-
Non Pecuniary damages
i) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
ii) Future loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
 discomfort etc:
 Total Rs.4,19,630/-
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below, appellant-Insurance Company has
approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for setting aside the Award passed by learned Tribunal below.
Having carefully perused the pleadings vis-Ã -vis evidence available on record, this Court finds no force in the arguments of Mr. Jagdish Thakur,
learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that the Award passed by learned Tribunal below is not based upon proper
appreciation of the evidence, rather, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter
meticulously and there is proper appreciation of evidence led on record by the respective parties. Onus to prove issues No. 3, 4 and 5 was on the
appellant-Insurance Company, however, it has failed to discharge its onus by leading cogent and convincing evidence, and as such, same rightly came
to be decided against the appellant-Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that the copy of driving licence was tendered in evidence as Ext. R-3,
perusal whereof clearly suggests that driver of the vehicle, deceased Shyam Lal was having a valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) and Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) from 23.8.2012 to 22.8.2015. Submissions having been made by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel
representing the appellant-Insurance Company that since learned counsel representing the petitioner failed to make available copy of driving licence to
the appellant -Insurance Company well within time, same could not be sent for verification to the office of RTO Mathura, who as per verification
report has intimated that deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence and as such liability could not have been fastened upon the
appellant, can not be accepted at this stage, because it is not in dispute that while tendering driving licence of deceased driver on record, factum, if
any, with regard to genuineness of driving licence possessed by deceased Shyam Lal was very much in the knowledge of the appellant- Insurance
Company and as such it ought to have taken all steps to get it verified from the office of RTO Mathura.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC (CMP No.
6606 of 2017) has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company praying therein to place on record additional documents, wherein
permission of this court has been sought to place on record verification report and letter dated 10.6.2017, issued by the RTO Mathura, wherein it has
been reiterated that deceased Shyam Lal was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. As has been observed herein above
that factum with regard to deceased Shyam Lal having no valid driving licence in his possession was very much in the knowledge of the appellant-
Insurance Company at the time of tendering same in evidence as Ext. R-3. Steps for verification of the same ought to have been taken immediately by
the appellant-Insurance Company and as such at a belated stage, that too after passing of Award, prayer made in the application referred to herein
above can not be accepted.
Evidence available on record clearly suggests that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% on account of injuries suffered
by him in the alleged accident. Dr. Ashish (PW-3) has categorically deposed before the learned Tribunal below that the petitioner suffered permanent
disability qua right lower limb and same is permanent in nature. While proving disability certificate, Ext. PW-3/A, aforesaid witness specifically denied
the suggestion that disability may improve with time and as such there appears to be no force in the argument of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel
representing the appellant-Insurance Company that petitioner has suffered 20% disability qua right lower limb and not with regard to whole of the
body. No doubt, perusal of Ext. PW-3/A suggests that petitioner suffered 20% disability qua right lower limb but definitely there is no evidence led on
record by the appellant-Insurance Company to refute the contention of the petitioner that on account of disability suffered by him, he has been
incapacitated. It stands duly proved on record that ill-fated vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the deceased driver and as such, learned
Tribunal below taking note of the fact that petitioner suffered 20% permanent disability, rightly arrived at a conclusion that petitioner has suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 20% in relation to right lower limb, which has definite effect on his earning capacity, which can not improve in
future. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was 45 years of age at the time of alleged accident and as such, there appears to be no illegality or
infirmity committed by the learned Tribunal below, while applying multiplier of 14, which is strictly in consonance with Sarla Verma’s case.
Factum with regard to petitioner having remained admitted in hospital with effect from 7.12.2013 to 17.12.2013 i.e. for eleven days, stands duly proved
on record as such, learned Tribunal below rightly awarded an amount of Rs.11,000/- each on account of attendant charges and special diet charges, as
has been observed herein above. Perusal of disability certificate Ext. PW-3/A leaves no doubt that petitioner has suffered 20% disability with respect
to right lower limb and learned Tribunal below rightly came to the conclusion that the possibility can not be ruled out that in future, petitioner, who is an
agriculturist, may not be capable of doing any work so long as he lives.
Having perused material available on record, especially Ext. PW-3/A, this Court is in disagreement with Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel
representing the appellant-Insurance Company that learned Tribunal below has wrongly recorded finding that the petitioner shall be unable to live a
normal life.
True it is, petitioner suffered 20% disability with respect to right lower limb but this Court can not lose sight of the fact that capability as well as
earning capacity of petitioner, who is admittedly an agriculturist, has seriously been affected due to the disability suffered by him and as such, learned
Tribunal below rightly held him entitled for a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh on account of ‘future loss of amenities and discomfort etc.’
This court is in disagreement with the contention of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that the
amount awarded by learned Tribunal below on account of future loss of amenities and discomfort is not in terms of evidence led on record and as
such sees no occasion to interfere with the same.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in case Smt. Chandra Wati V/s Tek Chand & others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 288, while dealing with the
question as to how to grant compensation in injury cases, has held as under:
“14. I have gone through the impugned award. The Tribunal has awarded a meager amount while ignoring the injuries suffered by the
claimant/victim and affect of the said injuries, which has made her life miserable and dependant throughout her life. The said injuries also destroyed
her matrimonial home, snatched the amenities and charm of her life and she has to be dependent on others throughout her life. She has undergone pain
and suffering and has to undergo it forever. Not only this, it has also affected her privacy.
Now, the question is how to grant compensation in such injury cases. The concept of granting compensation is outcome of Law of Torts. The
Tribunals, while examining a case of an injured and awarding compensation to him/her, have to do some guess work, sympathetically, keeping in view
the fate and physical frame of the injured/victim.
The Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755, had
discussed all aspects and laid down guidelines how a guess work is to be done and how compensation is to be awarded under various heads. It is apt
to reproduce paras 9 to 14 of the judgment hereinbelow:
“9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as
pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being
calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order
to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages
for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities
of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of
expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.
It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the
injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the
appellant and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it
has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is
to compensate such injury ""so far as money can compensate"" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal
deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.
In the case Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All ER 563, it was said:
Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his ""lost years"", you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened
span, that is, during his expected ""years of survival"".
You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate
him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be
unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and Juries have to do the best
they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it wellnigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure
is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of
money.
In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work,
some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be
viewed with objective standards.
This Court in the case of C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376, in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has
observed (at p. 380):
In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is
inevitable."" 14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said :- ""Non-pecuniary loss :
the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society
deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles
providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will
currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual
amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at
certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases.
The said judgment was also discussed by the Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another,
reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, while granting compensation in such a case. It is apt to reproduce para-7 of the judgment hereinbelow:
“7. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the
basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far
as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of
the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the
claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial
loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and
reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper
measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.â€
The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011
AIR SCW 4787 also laid down guidelines for granting compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 & 9 of the judgment hereinbelow:
“8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or
members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation
to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the
injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper.
The term ""disability"", as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body.
If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he
was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability
benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be
established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every
case.â€
The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771 also discussed the entire law and laid down
the guidelines how to grant compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 & 18 of the judgment hereinbelow:
“16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court considered large number of precedents and laid down the following propositions:
“The provision of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation
should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to
make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the
Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with
reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those
normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The
heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: “Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses
relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains)
which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and
trauma as a consequence of the injuries. v) (Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of
injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage) and loss of expectation of life.â€
………………………….
In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the
victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for
the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed
but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with
the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.â€
Admittedly, the claimant/victim was a house wife, who was maintaining her family, domestic home, looking after cows and selling milk; her income
was about Rs.5,000/- per month and was of the age of 55 years at the time of accident. This fact is not denied by the other side nor there is a rebuttal.
Even otherwise, a domestic wife is the backbone of a home, maintaining the domestic home and takes all steps to keep her husband, children and
other family members united, in good health and joyous mood. If anyone has to engage a helper for domestic help, the minimum wages which has to
pay, is not less than Rs.3,000/- per month plus clothing and food. She has not only been deprived of the income from domestic work, but also lost her
income by maintaining cows and selling milk. It is unrebutted, as discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award, that she has become permanently
disabled, helpless, hapless and a burden on others, has to suffer 45% permanent disability throughout her life and has lost her income, which was about
Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal also held that due to her dependency on others, she engaged a helper, to whom she is paying Rs.1500/- per month.
She has produced that lady Smt. Chinta as a witness, who has proved and stated that she is receiving Rs.1500/- per month from the claimant as
wages.
The Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, which is too meager, while taking the physical frame of the claimant and
other factors in consideration and in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, referred hereinabove, read with the judgment of the Apex Court in case
titled as Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences versus Prasanth S. Dhananka & others, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3563.â€
Hon'ble Apex Court in G. Ravindranath alias R. Chowdary vs. E. Srinivas & anr, AIR 2013 SC 2974, has held that compensation in personal
injury cases should be determined under the following heads:
“Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
II. Loss of earning (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured comprising: -
a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
III. Future medical expenses.
Non -pecuniary damages (General damages)
IV. Damages for pain and suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
V. Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
VI.Loss of expectation of life(shortening of normal longevity)â€
Under the head of “non-pecuniary damages†i.e. general damages, provision has also been made for loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage and loss of expectation of life (loss of longevity). Though in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in personal injury
cases, compensation shall be awarded only under head-I, II a) and IV, as noticed herein above, however, Hon'ble Apex Court while holding as above
has carved out an exception by stating that compensation shall be granted under any of the heads (II)(b), (III), (V) and (VI), where there is specific
medical evidence regarding loss of future income, on account of physical disability, medical expenses, loss of amenities and/or loss of prospects of
marriage, loss of expectation of life.
Factum with regard to petitioner, who was 45 years of age at the time of accident, having suffered 20% disability is not in dispute. Similarly, on
account of injury suffered by petitioner, factum with regard to his having remained admitted in hospital for eleven days is also not in dispute and as
such, applying ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment as also the parameters laid down therein, this court sees no reason to interfere with the
amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below under the head, “pain and sufferingâ€. However, this court is in agreement with Mr. Jagdish
Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that since petitioner stands duly compensated on account of medical expenses,
attendant charges and special diet charges, amount awarded by learned Tribunal below on account of pain and suffering is on higher side, as such,
same is reduced to Rs.40,000/- from Rs.50,000/-.
Having carefully perused the bills adduced on record on account of transportation charges, Ext. PW-1/B-64 to Ext. PW-1/B-82, this court is
persuaded to agree with Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate that the learned Tribunal below has erred in awarding Rs.88,000/- on account of transportation
charges. Perusal of bills adduced on record suggests that on 6.12.2013, claimant was taken to Shimla from Bagga in a taxi and he had paid Rs.3,000/-
vide Ext. PW-1/B-64. Similarly, it is admitted case of the parties that petitioner remained admitted in the Hospital with effect from 7.12.2013 to
17.12.2013, but the bills adduced on record by petitioner suggest that money has been claimed on account of taxi charges even for those dates during
which petitioner remained admitted. Bill Ext. PW-1/B/66 suggests that on 17.12.2013 i.e. when petitioner was discharged from hospital, taxi was hired
from Shimla to Bagga for Rs. 3,000/-, but it is not understood that why vehicle would go from Village Bagga, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, to take
petitioner from Shimla. Similarly, perusal of Ext. PW-1/B-68 suggests that on 6.1.2014, petitioner hired taxi from Bagga to Una and paid Rs.6,000/- but
there is no explanation rendered on record that why the vehicle was hired by petitioner for going to Una, especially when he was under treatment at
IGMC Shimla. Similarly, bills placed on record reveal that repeatedly petitioner hired taxi to visit Fortis Hospital Chandigarh but there is no evidence
led on record that on account of injuries suffered by petitioner in the accident, he was compelled to take treatment from Fortis at Chandigarh rather,
material available on record clearly suggests that petitioner took treatment on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident from IGMC Shimla
and as such there was no occasion for him to claim transportation charges on account of his having visited Fortis Hospital Mohali.
Otherwise also, perusal of Exts. P-71 and P-72 (Ext. PW-1/B-63) clearly suggests that petitioner visited Fortis Hospital on 6.10.2014 for getting
himself checked in the Department of Internal Medicines and not in Orthopaedic Department. There is no material led on record by petitioner to show
that he kept on visiting Fortis Hospital Chandigarh on account of injuries suffered by him in the alleged accident, as such, learned Tribunal below had
no occasion to award amount on account of transportation charges to the petitioner qua the bills, which were paid on account of journeys undertaken
by petitioner from Bagga to Chandigarh.
Leaving everything aside, this Court, having perused record finds considerable force in the argument of Mr. Jagdish Thakur that there appears to
be no attempt on the part of learned Tribunal below to verify whether on the dates qua which amount has been claimed by the petitioner on account of
taxi charges, petitioner had actually performed journeys to Shimla or Chandigarh to get himself checked/treated for the injuries suffered by him on
account of alleged accident. Though this court taking note of the facts as have been discussed herein above, would have reduced the amount under
the head of transportation charges substantially but taking note of the fact that appellant-Insurance Company was unable to rebut the bills adduced on
record, deems it fit to reduce the amount awarded under this head to Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.88,000/-.
Consequently, in view of modifications made herein above, appellant-claimant is held entitled to following amounts under various heads:
Pecuniary damages
i) Loss of future income Rs.1,20,960/-
ii) Medical Expenses: Rs.38,670/-
iii) Transportation Charges: Rs.50,000/-
iv) Attendant charges: Rs.11,000/-
v) Special diet charges: Rs.11,000/-
Non Pecuniary damages
i) Pain and suffering : Rs.40,000/-
ii) Future loss of amenities: Rs.1,00,000/-
 Total Rs.3,71,630/-
This Court however does not see any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation and as such, same is
upheld.
Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present appeal is partly allowed
and Award dated 9.3.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, District Solan (HP) in M.A.C. Petition No. 38ADJ-II/2
of 2015, is modified to the above extent only.
CMP No. 6606 of 2017
In view of the observations made in para-9 above, application is dismissed. Any other pending applications, are also disposed of. Interim direction
if any is vacated.