Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala High Court

P&H High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case, Citing Inadequate Award

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has enhanced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim, deeming the earlier award as inadequate. The judgment, pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Amarjot Bhatti, addressed the appeal filed by Raghbir Singh against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra.

Inadequate Compensation for Severe Injuries

The accident, which occurred in 2006, resulted in Raghbir Singh sustaining multiple injuries, including fractures and muscle tears. After undergoing extensive medical treatment in various hospitals, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 4,21,500/- along with interest. However, the appellant contended that the awarded amount was insufficient to cover the medical expenses and the extent of disability suffered.

Enhanced Compensation for Medical Expenses and Disability

The High Court carefully examined the medical bills and treatment records from Apna Hospital, Kurukshetra, and S.P.S. Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana, and upheld the awarded compensation for medical expenses, stating, "The compensation of Rs. 3,21,500/- granted for medical expenditure does not require any interference."

However, regarding the permanent disability suffered by Raghbir Singh, the Court observed, "The appellant suffered 41% disability in knee, ankle, and muscle wasting in the left leg. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disability. The appellant is entitled to an additional Rs. 94,000/-."

Loss of Income and Other Expenses Recognized

Highlighting the impact of the accident on the appellant's profession as a shopkeeper, the High Court granted compensation for loss of income, attendant charges, transportation, and special diet, which the Tribunal had not considered. The Court stated, "Considering the seat of injury as well as his profession, the functional disability is taken as 15%. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 5,000/- for attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, and Rs. 10,000/- for special diet."

Future Medical Treatment Claim Not Established

While the appellant claimed compensation for potential future medical treatments, the Court observed a lack of supporting evidence and did not award compensation for this aspect.

Total Compensation Increased to Rs. 5,60,500/-

Taking all aspects into consideration, the High Court modified the award passed by the Tribunal and increased the total compensation to Rs. 5,60,500/-, including interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till realization.

Date of Decision: 24th July 2023

Raghbir Singh vs Dharmender Etc.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Raghbir_Singh_vs_Dharmender_Etc_on_24_July_2023_PH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News