Accident--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future. Accident--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--While assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency.

D.S. Jaspal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
F.A.O. No. 179 of 1990
D.S. Jaspal & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 20/04/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future.
Accident--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--While assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency.
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Negligence--Accident not denied--Specific case set up that due to failure of brakes he could not control bus--Bus was coming from hilly area, therefore, certainly, it must have started with a pre-check up of whole machinery including brakes--Driver has admitted that during journey brakes of bus were in order--Mechanical report showing failure of brakes has not been proved--Driver must have applied brakes on earlier occasions even while crossing railway track--It is not his case that brakes were not working at that time--Thus, it does not appeal to reasons that brakes had failed only at juncture where he was also to stop bus for traffic checking on barrier--From consistent testimony of injured witnesses as well as from circumstances of case, an inescapable conclusion could be arrived that driver was driving bus at high speed, having failed to control same, it dashed in to a car causing one casualty, rendering three occupants as seriously injured--Photographs reveal that car has been completely smashed therefore speed of bus could be well assessed--Plea that bus was being driven at speed of 5-6 kms per hour--No tenable. (Para 18)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Determination of--Principle of determination of compensation was considered on rule of restitution in intergrum which means that compensation is measured at cost of repair or repairing original position applies only when if and so far as original position can be restored--If not possible, Tribunal must endeavour to give fair equivalent in money--Bodily injury shall be treated as deprivation which entitled claimant to damages--Compensation awarded should not be token but should be an adequate and reasonable to achieve statutory goal. (Para 24)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--While defining pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including age, unusual deprivation he has suffered and affect thereof on his future. (Para 26)
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--Claimant remained admitted in P.G.I. for two months with an advice of a second operation for hip fracture of left hip bone--He continued attending hospital as an out door patient for two months after his discharge from hospital--Due to hip fracture, he could not lift his left leg nor could he drive four wheeler--He spent about Rs.6000/- on medicines and Rs.5000/- on special diet--He needed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- for operation of hip fracture in Sweden--He remained away from job for three months and suffered loss of Rs.9000/-.--According to doctor, there was dis-location of both hips and he was operated upon on 14.4.1987--Also testified that he was advised physiotherapy till 18.7.1987 and on 10.11.1987, he determined his disability as 20% because he was having difficulty in lifting his left lower limb--Compensation awarded under different heads for which Tribunal not awarded any compensation--Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 from Rs. 1,20,000--Claimant is entitled to interest from date of application till realization. (Para 28)
(E) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Enhancement of--Calculation--According to medical evidence claimant suffered permanent partial disability to extent of 40%--Her leg was shortened by 1- ½ inches--Injured was 31 years of age at time of accident--As per Sarla Verma’s case multiplier of 18 should be applied--Therefore, Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.51840/- on account of permanent disability suffered by her instead of Rs.43200/-.--Claimant is entitled to compensation to tune of Rs.1,74,000/-.
(F) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Non-pecuniary loss--Claimant was having injury on his left wrist for which plaster was applied--Thereafter, he was admitted in hospital again on 22.5.1987 for his operation qua fracture of corpal bone of left wrist--Again he was put under plaster for three months--Injured suffered permanent partial disability as 35%--Since doctor has no where stated that claimant was in any way incapacitated to work for whole of his life and was unable to perform his job, no pecuniary loss could be assessed, but, while calculating non-pecuniary loss, compensation awarded enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. (Para 32, 34 & 35)
(G) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Compensation--Deceased was house wife--Courts while taking into consideration entire circumstances should asses value of their services rendered to family--Appellant was spending Rs.1000/- per month for maintaining her children, cooking food and to leave children to school and then certainly her notional income even in absence of any data and taking into consideration his multifarious services and duties rendered to family could be assessed at Rs.1000/- per month--
Though in case Lata Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar and others assessed notinal income of a house wife @ Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum, keeping in view that accident took place in year 1987 and value of money was higher at that time, income of deceased assessed @ Rs.1000/- and per month Rs.12,000/- per annum--Thus, while assessing her income @ Rs.1000/- per month as she was rendering services towards family worth Rs.1000/-, no deduction requires to be made qua her own dependency--Deceased was 29 years old and was very active in life, maintaining whole of family including her husband and children--Multiplier of 18 to be applied--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,16,000/-.--Besides, claimants who are husband and children are also to some amount of compensation on account of lose of love and affection and consortium, therefore, a sum of Rs.14,000/- is awarded on these heads--Claimants would be entitled to receive compensation to tune of Rs.2,30,000/-. (Para 36)