IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO $OF 2025$ (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11445 of 2023)

USHA NANCHAHAL

... APPELLANT

VERSUS

GURDEV SINGH & ANR.

... RESPONDENTS

$$

$1.$ Leave granted.

$2.$ This is the claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation contending inter alia that compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula as enhanced by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, on account of the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident that took place on 14.04.2007 is abysmally on the lower side.

3. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

$4.$ After bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we are of the considered view that the compensation that has been Farded by the Tribunal and as enhanced by the High Court is on the lower side and

deserves to be enhanced substantially for the reasons indicated hereinbelow.

5. Before we dwell into the factual matrix, it would be apt and appropriate to note at the outset that the Tribunal as well as the High Court has in extenso recorded a finding of fact with regard to the manner in which accident occurred, nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the policy issued to the offending vehicle by the insurer being in force as on the date of the accident and there being no serious dispute with regard to the insurer disputing its liability. Hence, these aspects are not delved in detail to avoid repetition.

6. Now, turning our attention to the core issue, namely, to what extent the claimant would be entitled to enhancement, we have proceeded to examine the records and find that on account of the road accident that occurred, claimant had sustained a crush injury of left leg resulting in amputation above knee and during the said period, she was in hospital from 14.04.2007 to 02.06.2007. The Tribunal, while assessing the loss of future income has construed the monthly income of claimant at Rs.3,500/-. Having regard to the fact that the claimant is a housewife, who not only performs several duties like taking care of the house, children, maintenance etc., the notional income of the claimant fixed by the Tribunal and as enhanced by the High Court at Rs.5,000/ p.m. seems to be marginally on the lower side and hence we propose to consider the income of the claimant at Rs.7,500/- per month. Having regard to the age of the claimant being 54 years as on the date of the accident, 10% towards future prospects required to be added, namely Rs.750/- and, thus, the income of the claimant per month would have to be construed at Rs.8,250/-. Disability, as assessed by the doctor, being 75% to the particular limb, the whole body disability will also have to be construed at 75% keeping in mind the nature of work the claimant would be prevented from discharging as a housewife but for the disability. Thus, the loss of income would be Rs.6,187.50 per month which can be rounded off to Rs.6,190/- per month. Thus, the compensation to which the claimant would be entitled to towards loss of future income would be Rs.8,17,080/- (8250 x 75% = 6187.50 rounded off to 6190 x 12 x 11).

7. The compensation as awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and towards future medical expenses at Rs.1,00,000/- is just and reasonable and no interference is called for. Insofar as the compensation towards pain and sufferings is concerned, we propose to award additional compensation of Rs.50,000/-for reasons more than one. Firstly, on account of amputation, the pain and agony that the claimant would have undergone during the initial period is insurmountable; secondly, the wound having not healed, had resulted in septicemia (infection) for which she had to undergo further treatment, and thus, we are inclined to award an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

8. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was an in-patient for more than two months, necessarily the claimant would have incurred expenses towards food and nourishment, not only for herself but also for her attendant and therefore a sum of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court for the same is marginally on the lower side, and thus, we award an additional compensation of Rs.55,000/-.

9. For the purposes of taking treatment and to obtain physiotherapy, the claimant has engaged the services of a driver, who also appeared before the Tribunal and tendered evidence i.e. Exihibit PB and reiterated the fact of having been employed by claimant upto to 31.01.2008 and was being paid Rs.4,500/- per month. Thus, the attendant and transportation charges, the compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court requires further enhancement by awarding further compensation. Accordingly, an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded.

10. On account of amputation above the knee, certain comforts in life are lost to the claimant. She has to experience a lot of discomfort throughout her life while attending to her day-to-day chores. She will always be subject to gaze, which might cause an embarrassment for. Thus, she is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of future happiness and amenities.

11. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the claimant would be entitled for additional compensation as under: -

4

Sr. No.	Head	Amount of
		Compensation
1	Towards loss of future income	3,17,080.00
2	Pain and suffering	50,000.00
3	Food, nourishment and	55,000.00
	attendant charges
4	Transportation charges	50,000.00
5	Loss of amenities	1,00,000.00
	Total	5,72,080.00

12. The amount of additional compensation shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.

13. The insurer-second respondent is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the jurisdictional tribunal within eight weeks.

14. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs and all pending applications stand consigned to records.

…………………………………………………,J. [J.K. MAHESHWARI]

…………………………………………………,J. [ARAVIND KUMAR]

New Delhi; February 03, 2025. ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.6 SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11445/2023

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-02-2023 in FAO No. 4739/2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

USHA NANCHAHAL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

GURDEV SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 03-02-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Dushyant Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Chandra Pandey, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Adv. Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Shrivastava, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order with no order as to costs and all pending applications stand consigned to records.

(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)