FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-21396-CII-2024 IN/AND FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.01.2025 Satbir ......Appellant Vs. Subhash and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) CM-19942-CII-2024 1. The present application has been filed seeking restoration of the main appeal i.e. FAO-1364-2007, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 16.10.2024 passed by this Court. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the main appeal i.e. FAO- 1364-2007, is ordered to be restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself. FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 14.12.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -2- Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant, was dismissed. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2004, appellant/claimant along with respondent No.1-Subhash was travelling from Somani Factory, Bahadurgarh to Narnaul, in a truck bearing registration No.HR-38B-1163, which was being driven by said Subhash, whereas, appellant/claimant was working as a conductor in the said truck. When they reached near village Kheri Khumar, said Subhash started driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. As a result thereof, appellant/claimant fell down on the road near village Khatiwas and sustained multiple injuries on his left leg and left hand. Thereafter, the driver of the offending truck fled away from the spot. In this regard, a case bearing FIR No.20 dated 13.01.2005 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered at Police Station Jhajjar, District Jhajjar. 3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation. 4. Appellant/claimant did not file rejoinder to the written reply. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get claim/compensation of Rs.10 lacs, if so from whom? OPP VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -3- 2) Whether respondent no.1 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, if so, to what effect? OPP 3) Whether the claim petition had been filed by the petitioner in collusion with the respondent no.1 and 2, if so, to what effect? OPP. 4) Relief.” 6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that the appellant/claimant did not have any license of the conductor and he was not able to prove whether he was working as a Conductor on the offending vehicle or not? He further contends that the learned Tribunal has also erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there was a delay of four months in lodging the FIR. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated 14.12.2006 and submits that the award has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -4- 10. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:- “ISSUE No.01. 11. In order to prove the accident, the petitioner has himself appeared in the witness box as PW4 and testified that on 28.9.2004, he was going from Bahadurgarh to Narnaul in a truck bearing registration No HR-38B- 1163. When they reached near village Khatiwas, on a speed braker, the driver of the truck applied sudden brakes, due to which, the truck was shaken and he fell down on the road, due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver i.e respondent No.1. Due to the accident, he received injuries on various parts of his body and the driver of truck ran away from the spot. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was working as conductor on the said truck for the last one week and he was employed by the driver of the truck ie respondent No.01 and not by the owner i.e respondent No.2. He also admitted that he was not having a conductor license, rather he was having a driving license to run the heavy vehicles. He further stated that he had not reported the matter to the police immediately after the accident because the truck driver had assured to compensate him for the expenses of the treatment etc. But, he lodged the FIR, when he resiled from his assurance. He refuted the suggestion that he was not employed by the driver on the said truck or that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by respondent No. 1 or that he was not traveling in the said truck at that time or that the accident took place due to his own fault. He admitted that FIR for this accident i.e. Ex.P11 was got lodged when he filed a complaint before VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -5- the Illaqua Magistrate. He refuted the suggestion that he had filed a false complaint against the driver of truck in order to get the compensation. 12. The next witness of the petitioners to prove the accident is Jagmal Singh, who has appeared in the witness box as PW1. He has testified that on 28.9.2004, he was coming from Jahajgarh to Jhajjar with his Tempo and when he reached near village Khatiwas, a truck came from the opposite side, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing the said truck, he stopped his tempo on the kacha berm of the road due to fear. In the mean time, the driver of said truck drove his truck in a rash and negligent manner and jumped over a speed braker, due to which, the petitioner fell down from the truck and received injuries. The truck driver had in away from the spot. He further stated that the petitioner was traveling in the said truck. When he asked, the petitioner told him that he was working as conductor on the said truck and thereafter, he had taken him to his village Meharampur. In his cross-examination, he pleaded his ignorance about the traffic going on the road at the time of accident. He has given his age as 65 years. He refuted the suggestion that he was not having a driving license or that he was not authorized to drive the tempo or that he was not even able to see properly or that the accident was caused by some un-identified vehicle. 13. On this evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the driver or the owner of the truck did not appear in the witness box and from the evidence adduced by the petitioners, it is proved that he VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -6- has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by respondent No.1. 14. On the other hand, it was contended by learned counsel for the insurance company that it is a false and manipulated case. No prompt FIR was lodged nor the petitioner has been able to prove the fact that he was working conductor on the said truck or that he was traveling in the said truck at the time of accident and, therefore, it is not proved that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.1. 15. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is force in the contention of learned counsel for the insurance company. If the statement of petitioner is perused carefully, it is quite evident that he was not working as conductor on the said truck because he is not having any such license and he has admitted that he was not having such license rather he was having a license to run the heavy vehicle, but he has not produced the same. He has admitted that he was employed as conductor on week before the said accident that too by the driver of the said truck. No doubt, FIR was not lodged with the police by the petitioner, but the same was lodged at the instance of Magistrate. The accident in question had taken place on 28.9.2004, whereas the FIR was lodged on 13.1.2005 i.e. after about tour months. Mere lodging of FIR is not sufficient to prove that the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. It is also a settled law that a person who does not come to court with clean hands is not entitled to any relief. From VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -7- the statement of petitioner and eye witnesses, it appears that the entire story has been manipulated and fabricated by the petitioner in order to get the compensation, therefore, it is held that the petitioner did not sustain any injury due to rash and negligent driving of truck by the petitioner or out of the use of the said truck and hence, this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. 16. Since, under issue No.1, it is proved that the petitioner did not sustain injuries in the alleged accident, therefore, the remaining issues have he won become infructuous and thus, there is no need to give any findings thereon.” 11. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal failed to adequately consider the testimony of PW-1, Jagmal Singh (eye-witness), who categorically deposed that on 28.09.2004, while driving his tempo near Village Khatiwas, he witnessed the accident. He specifically stated that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, jumping over a speed breaker, causing the claimant, who was traveling in the truck, to fall and sustain injuries. He further stated that he helped the appellant/claimant by taking him to his village and confirmed that appellant/claimant was a Conductor on the truck. The testimony of PW-1, Jagmal Singh (eye- witness), remained consistent and unshaken during the cross-examination. The respondent’s counsel failed to elicit any contradiction or cast doubt on the credibility of the said witness. Moreover, the suggestion put to PW-1, Jagmal Singh, that he fabricated his statement was refuted with cogent VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -8- reasoning, including his lack of connection with the claimant. Thus, his testimony corroborates the appellant/claimant’s version of the events and establishes rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. The appellant/claimant (Satbir), while appearing as PW-4, deposed by giving a detailed account of the incident. He testified that on 28.09.2004, he was travelling in the truck as a Conductor. Due to the driver’s sudden application of brakes while crossing a speed breaker, the truck jerked violently, causing him to fall and sustain multiple injuries. The claimant unequivocally stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. 12. Despite lengthy cross-examination, the testimony of PW-4 i.e the appellant/claimant (Satbir), remained consistent and credible. The learned Tribunal erred in dismissing his testimony on the basis of his lack of possessing a Conductor license. It is well settled that the absence of a license does not absolve the driver or owner of the vehicle from liability from injuries caused by negligence. Further the claims under the Motor Vehicle Act are not contingent upon the claimant’s employment status or possession of a license but are determined based on the negligence of the driver and the resultant injury. 13. The deposition of PW-7, Dr. T.S.Bagri, who assessed the appellant/claimant’s permanent disability, unequivocally supports the appellant/claimant’s case. He testified that the claimant sustained 30% permanent disability due to fractures and complications arising from the accident. The medical records, including X-rays and the disability certificate VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -9- (Ex.P.12), substantiate the injuries and confirm their connection to the accident. The learned Tribunal’s rejection of this evidence on the ground of delayed lodging of the FIR is legally untenable. It is a well-settled principle of law that delay in lodging the FIR, particularly in claims for compensation, can not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis to discredit the claimant’s case. 14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, 2011(4) SCC 693, has conclusively held that a delay in lodging the FIR cannot be deemed fatal to motor claim proceedings, provided the claimant satisfactorily explain the delay with cogent and reasonable grounds. The relevant extracts of the same is reproduced as under:- “20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -10- then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. 21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” Therefore, the dismissal of the claim petition on this ground is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 15. Such delay must be evaluated in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present matter, the delay is satisfactorily justified by the claimant’s reliance on the truck driver’s initial assurance to bear medical expenses. Furthermore, the claim is substantiated by corroborative evidence, including eye-witness accounts and medical records, which reinforce the credibility of the claimant’s case. Therefore, the mere VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -11- delay in lodging the FIR does not vitiate the validity of the claim. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to victims of motor accidents. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the principles of preponderance of probabilities, which govern the adjudication of motor accident claims. 16. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021(1) SCC(Cri) 475 has held that in a motor vehicular accident, standard of proof in motor accident matters is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt and strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- 22. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non- examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v.Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646. wherein this Court reiterated that: VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -12- “7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pickup van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101]) (emphasis supplied)” The consistent and corroborated testimonies of PW-1, Jagmal Singh (eye-witness), and PW-4, appellant/claimant (Satbir), coupled with the medical evidence, clearly establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck. 17. In view of the above, the award dated 14.12.2006 passed by learned Tribunal stand vitiated by complete absence of application of judicial mind. 18. With respect to determination of compensation, the record contains evidence of hospital admission, the claimant’s earning and expenses incurred for medical treatment and hospitalization. Consequently, this Court shall adjudicate the compensation in accordance with the documented evidence on the record. 19. A perusal of the award shows that the appellant/claimant was stated to be working as a Conductor and his monthly income was asserted to be Rs.5,000/- , however, no documentary evidence qua the same was placed VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -13- on the record. Therefore, under the prevailing facts of the case, the monthly income of the injured is to be assessed as Rs.2,600/- per month at par with the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled worker prevailing at the time of accident in the State of Haryana. Further perusal of the record shows that the appellant/claimant was aged around 35 years old at the time of accident and as per disability certificate, Ex.P12, he had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. The injured on account of the permaent disability suffered by him in the accident is also entitled to the compensation under the conventional heads. A perusal of the award further shows that the appellant/claimant has proved on record medical bills, Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-32. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:- General principles relating to compensation in injury cases 5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('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 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 VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -14- 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. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467). 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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. xxx xxx xxx xxx 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -15- disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows: a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/-. b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-. c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17 d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/- Illustration 'B' : The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows : a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/- . b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) :Rs. 27000/-. c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17 VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -16- d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/- Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows : a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/- b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/- c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18 d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/- [Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)]. 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:- (A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand; (B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -17- (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:- “7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us: (a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18'; The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the extent of disability. The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -18- (b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8: "8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects: (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; (ii) Loss of income including future income; (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities; (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life." [emphasis supplied] The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under: "Nature of injury: (i) compound fracture shaft left humerus (ii) fracture both bones left forearm (iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm (iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand (v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur (vi) fracture shaft femur (vii) fracture both bones left leg We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -19- appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case. (c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish’s case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court. CONCLUSION 8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows: Heads Awarded Loss of earning power (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100 Rs. 9,81,978/- Future prospects (50 per cent addition) Rs.4,90,989/- Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc. Rs.18,46,864/- VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -20- Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/- Loss of comfort, loss of amenities and mental agony Rs.1,50,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.41,69,831/- The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. RELIEF 23. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award dated 14.12.2006 is hereby set aside. The appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation as per the calculations made here-under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 Monthly Income Rs.2,600/- 2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.1,040/- (40% of 2,600/-) 3 Annual Income Rs.43,680/- (3,640 X 12) 4 Loss of future earning due to disability (30%) Rs.13,104/- (30% of 43,680) 5 Multiplier (16) Rs.2,09,664 (13,104 X 16) 6 Medical Expenses Rs.19,616/- (Rounded off to Rs.20,000/-) 7 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 8 Special Diet Rs.30,000/- 9 Transportation charges Rs.20,000/- 10 Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/- 11 Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/- Total Compensation Rs.4,49,664/- VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1364-2007 (O&M) -21- 24. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellant- claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. 25. The Insurance Company-respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with interest in the account of the appellant/claimant. The appellant/claimant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal. 26. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is hereby directed to disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate, within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. 27. Disposed of accordingly. 28. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 10.01.2025 Virrendra Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.16 13:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document