We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Insurance Company, and perused the pleadings on record.
He further suffered fracture of both jaw bones, and disfiguration of his face.
10,43,666/ to the Appellant.
After going through the nature of injuries suffered, and the Disability Certificate, the High Court was of the view that the disability suffered by the Appellant was 100 insofar as his earning capacity was companycerned, and he had become fully dependant on his family for survival.
10473 of 2014 by the Punjab Haryana High Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.07.01 171235 IST Reason Court at Chandigarh.
The Appellant was assessed by a Medical Board on 08.09.2010, and on examination it was found to be an operated case with hemiplegia i.e. weakness of one half of the body on the left side.
His disability was assessed at 75, which was permanent in nature.
The Appellant has however, produced an Affidavit by his employer in this Court.
for the injuries suffered by him.
At about 515 p.m., when the car reached near Village Khanpur, a truck bearing Registration No.
He had to visit PGI, Chandigarh on various dates for followup treatment as an outdoor patient.
The loss of income due to functional disability was assessed at 75 which came to about Rs.
The Appellant driver survived, but became permanently disabled.
The Appellant was 23 years old at the time when the accident occurred.
The High Court vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 partially allowed the FAO, and enhanced the companypensation awarded to Rs.21,06,000/. The companypensation was enhanced since the Appellant had suffered from 100 disability with respect to his earning capacity.
The doctor opined that the Appellant shall number be able to work as a labourer, or do agricultural work, or work as a driver.
HR55B 9491 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which came from the opposite direction at a very high speed, and rammed into the car.
10,000/ p.m. as a driver prior to the accident.
15,000/ p.m. 5.4.
Captain Kanwaljit Singh succumbed to his injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital.
The Appellant was produced before the Court at the time of hearing.
6,000/ p.m., which worked out to Rs.
The Appellant had to undergo 5 surgeries for which he required successive hospitalizations.
The accident occurred due to the companytributory negligence of the driver of another truck bearing Registration No.
The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed, briefly stated, are as follows 2.1.
The Appellant companytended that he was earning an income of Rs.
The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the Appellant for enhancement of the companypensation to Rs.
As per the said Affidavit, the Appellant was earning Rs.
The High Court granted Future Prospects 50 to the income of the Appellant.
HR58A9791, which was wrongly parked on the road.
The Appellant suffered from grievous injuries, including a head injury with traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and had to undergo a hemicraniotomy i.e. removal of front bone of the skull.
By applying the multiplier of 18 to the income of the Appellant, the companypensation on account of loss of future earnings worked out to Rs.
The Appellant filed a Claim Petition before the MACT, Panchkula against the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks, along with the insurer of the two offending trucks viz.
72,000/ per annum, on the ground that the Appellant did number produce any evidence, number examine any witness to prove his income.
As a result of the accident, Captain Kanwaljit Singh and the Appellant driver sustained grievous injuries.
The Appellant filed FAO NO.
The Insurance Company produced a Licensing Clerk from the RTO Office at Mathura, U.P. who deposed that the driving licenses had number been issued in the name of the drivers by their office.
10,43,666/ along with Interest 7.5 p.a.
The MACT proceeded on the basis of a numberional income of Rs.
The Respondent Insurance Company was directed to pay companypensation to the Appellant in the first instance, and recover the same from the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks.
the Respondent Insurance Company.
As a result, the MACT held the owners and drivers of the two offending trucks jointly and severally liable to pay companypensation to the Appellant.
9,72,000/. The Appellant was awarded a total amount of Rs.
On 29.03.2009, the Appellant driver, was driving a Hyundai Elantra car in which Captain Kanwaljit Singh, a Cabinet Minister in Punjab, was being driven from Ludhiana.
10473 of 2014 before the Punjab Haryana High Court for enhancement of the companypensation awarded by the MACT.
The High Court vide Interim Order dated 11.07.2017, directed the Appellant to be reassessed by a Medical Board at the Government Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula.
On the question of liability to pay companypensation, the drivers of both the offending trucks were found number to be holding valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the accident.
The Respondent Insurance Company pleaded that the drivers of the two offending vehicles were driving the trucks without valid driving licenses.
54,000/ per annum.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
The licenses had been issued in the name of some other persons.
The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the claimant to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 passed Signature Not Verified in FAO No.
The MACT, Panchkula vide Award dated 25.01.2013, allowed the Claim Petition, and awarded companypensation of Rs.
Due to the severe head injury, his left arm and leg were number functioning properly.
The Insurance Company was absolved of the liability to pay companypensation.
