Manjeet Singh vs Gurdas Singh

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle has come forward with the present appeal. Respondent-claimant suffered injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.8.2009. Respondent pleaded that he underwent operation for five times. He has also suffered permanent disability. He pleaded that he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 per month being an agriculturist.

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,300 towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,00,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs. 1,00,000 towards five surgical operations undergone by the respondent, Rs. 20,000 each towards transportation charges, special diet, attendant charges and Rs. 1,20,000 towards loss of income for eight months.

The main grievance of the appellant/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle is that the Tribunal should not have awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards surgical operations. It is further submitted that a whopping sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was awarded towards pain and suffering. That apart, it is contended that without any material to establish the monthly income of the respondent, a sum of Rs. 15,000 was assessed as monthly income of the deceased.

Learned Counsel appearing of the respondent-injured-claimant would submit that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation based on the materials produced.

Respondent has established before the Tribunal that he had undergone five surgical operations. In other words, the respondent has undergone pain and suffering for six times. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded towards pain and suffering cannot be termed as whopping.

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,300 towards medical expenses incurred by the respondent towards five surgical operations conducted on him but, strangely, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards five surgical operations apart from a sum of Rs. 1,40,300 awarded towards medical expenses for such operations. In my considered view, when the Tribunal has awarded a sizable amount towards medical expenses, the question of awarding separately a sizable amount towards surgical operations does not arise.

The Tribunal has held that the contention of the respondent that he was an agriculturist earning Rs. 2,00,000 per month was not established. Even no revenue record was produced to buttress such a contention but strangely the Tribunal jumped to the conclusion without any basis that the respondent would have been earning a sum of Rs. 15,000 per month. As rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant, the assessment of Rs. 15,000 as monthly earnings of the deceased is found to be totally disproportionate to the earning capacity, if any, established before the Tribunal. In my considered view, the Tribunal should have taken a maximum amount of Rs. 5,000 per month as monthly income.

In view of the above, instead of sum of Rs. 1,20,000 towards loss of income for eight months, the respondent is entitled to only a sum of Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 5,000 x 8 = Rs. 40,000) towards loss of income for eight months.

Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and a sum of Rs. 5,20,300 minus Rs. 1,80,000 = Rs. 3,40,300 is awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be disbursed to the respondent-claimant towards part of the compensation awarded to him. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal is partly allowed.