(Oral):
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant (Kaur Singh) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide Award dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short the ‘MACT’).
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that the appellant-claimant instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the MV Act’) seeking compensation of Rs.90 lakhs on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 31.10.2018.
3. It was claimed that on 31.10.2018, at around 6:45 PM, the appellant-claimant was returning to his house on foot after recharging his mobile phone and when he crossed the road and reached the kacha portion near village Karamgarh Satran on Bathinda-Malout Road, a tanker bearing registration no. PB-22K-7682 (hereinafter to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent no. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came from Bathinda side and struck against the claimant. As a result of the same, the claimant sustained multiple injuries. He was initially taken to Max Hospital, Bathinda. Thereafter, he was shifted to Adesh Hospital, Bathinda and subsequently to Government Medical College, Faridkot, where both his legs upto thighs, had to be amputated, resulting into a permanent disability.
4. It was further the case of the appellant that on account of the said accident, he suffered 100% permanent disability and is completely dependent upon others for his day-to-day activities.
5. It was also claimed that he had incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- (approx.) on his treatment. It was further averred that at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 47 years and was working as a foreman with Narmada Offshore at Navi Mumbai and was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- was claimed.
6. Upon notice, respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the factum of the accident. It was averred that as per the family of the claimant, the accident had occurred because of the claimant having suddenly come in front of the offending vehicle. It was further asserted that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid to the claimant on humanitarian grounds.
7. Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) filed its separate written statement raising its usual defences and also denied the factum of accident. It was averred that respondent no. 2 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether claimant Kaur Singh @ Jaskori Pakhir Singh sustained injuries on his person due to accident caused by respondent Jagsir Singh @ Seera on 31.10.2018, while driing Tanker bearing RC No. PB-22K-7682, rashly and negligently? OPP
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim any compensation. If so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent no. 1 alleged driver of offending vehicle was not holding & effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident in question? OPR-3
4. Whether resp. No. 2 alleged owner of offending vehicle was not holding a valid registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and insurance of the vehicle, at the time of alleged accident? OPR-3
5. Whether resp. No. 1 & 2 have violated the terms and conditions of alleged policy? OPR
6. Relief.
9. Parties led their respective evidence.
10. On issue No.1, it was held by the MACT that the accident had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1.
11. On issue No.2 i.e. quantum of compensation, the MACT awarded the following compensation:-
| Sr. No. | Heads | Amount in Rupees |
| 1. | Medical Expenses | Rs. 26,412/- (Rs. 1,76,412/- - Rs. 1,50,000/-) |
| 2. | Compensation for Loss of Income (During Treatment) | Rs. 16,000/- |
| 3. | Compensation for Loss of future earning due to permanent disability | Rs. 96,000/- |
| 4. | Compensation for conveyance, Attendant Charges & Special diet | Rs. 75,000/- |
| 5. | Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, pain & suffering and Loss of amenities | Rs. 1,50,000/- |
| Total | Rs. 3,63,412/- |
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. It would be relevant to note here that by way of an order of even date, an application for additional evidence moved by the appellant has been allowed and documents viz. Aadhar Card and Disability Certificate, mentioning the date of birth of the appellant as 22.02.1972, have been produced.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant–claimant submits that the MACT erred in assessing the age of the claimant on the basis of an incorrect date of birth, whereas to prove the same, the claimant has, by way of additional evidence, placed on record his Aadhar Card as well as the disability certificate issued by the competent authority, both reflecting his date of birth as 22.02.1972. Keeping in view the said date of birth, the MACT ought to have taken the age of the claimant as 47 years and accordingly, after applying the appropriate multiplier, compensation should have been assessed and awarded. He further submits that keeping in view the permanent disability suffered by the claimant, compensation awarded by the MACT is very much on the lower side. He also submits that the claimant was working as a rig worker and had a visa for Dubai and, therefore, his income ought to have been assessed at least as that of a skilled worker. He further submits that compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side and the same deserves enhancement. He also submits that the claimant, having suffered amputation in both legs, is entitled to compensation towards future medical expenses as well. It is further contended that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded, which is contrary to the settled principles of law.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the compensation awarded by the MACT is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. It is further argued that while awarding compensation, the MACT took into consideration the evidence on record and, thus, no interference is called for.
17. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
18. The factum of the accident stood proved on record. Insofar as the age of the claimant is concerned, the MACT assessed the same on the basis of date of birth of the claimant as 12.01.1940. However, the claimant has placed on record his Aadhar Card as well as the disability certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Bathinda, by way of additional evidence, both reflecting his date of birth as 22.02.1972. The said documents, being official in nature, carry evidentiary value and there was nothing on record to doubt their authenticity. In fact, before the MACT also, passport of the appellant was produced as per which the date of birth was 22.02.1972. However, in the earlier Aadhar Card, and on the basis of the same, in the disability certificate, the date of birth had been mentioned as 12.01.1940. This Court finds no reason to discard the documentary evidence in the shape of passport, aadhar card and disability certificate. Accordingly, the date of birth of the claimant is taken as 22.02.1972 for the purposes of assessment of compensation. Further, keeping in view the age of the deceased being 47 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier of 13 is held to be applicable for the purpose of computation of compensation.
19. However, the contention regarding the claimant being employed as a rig worker and for assessing his income as that of a skilled worker, cannot be accepted in the absence of any cogent evidence. Thus, the assessment of the income of the claimant by the MACT, as that of an unskilled worker, calls for no interference.
20. Keeping in view the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the claimant, particularly amputation of both legs below thighs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant would require prosthetic limbs for mobility and rehabilitation, which would also entail recurring expenditure for maintenance and replacement. Accordingly, he is held entitled to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards future medical expenses. Further, considering that the claimant has been rendered permanently disabled and is unable to carry out his day-to-day activities independently, he would require the assistance of an attendant for the rest of his life. Therefore, this Court considers it just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.12,48,000/- for the same. Besides, the claimant has undergone immense physical pain, prolonged treatment and has been deprived of normal amenities of life. The amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering is, thus found to be inadequate and deserves to be enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-, and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of amenities of life. So far as the ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is concerned, the same cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded under the MV Act and is, thus, not liable to be adjusted.
21. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the compensation awarded by the MACT, is re-assessed as under:-
22. The total compensation as enhanced by this Court, therefore, comes to Rs. 38,25,412/-. After deducting a sum of Rs. 3,63,412/- as assessed by the MACT, the balance compensation comes to Rs. 34,62,000/-. This amount would be payable in addition to the amount assessed by the MACT along with interest @ 7.5% annually. The liability to pay the same would be as per the award.
23. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
24. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.