Why Punjab and Haryana High Court gave Rs 60 lakh payout to man who ‘resumed’ job after 2016 crash

The salary slips do not show that the claimant is working with the same efficiency as before, the court says.

Delayed FIR

• The mere delay in lodging the FIR does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, create any dent in the case of the claimant.
• The evidence on record clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure prompt medical treatment for the injured.
• It is by now well settled that a delay in registration of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases, where the primary effort of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim.

Resumption of employment, not restoration

• The record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs 18,268 per month by working at Excel Security Company.
• The tribunal’s assessment is based on reliable evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity, and finds no ground to interfere with the tribunal’s record.
• Mere resumption of employment, in an accommodated capacity, cannot be equated with restoration of earning capacity to its pre-accident level.
• The concept of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be assessed keeping in view the nature of the avocation and the impact of injuries on the ability of the claimant.
• The record reflects that the claimant suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability, which would impair his efficiency, mobility and performance.
• The salary slips do not show that the claimant is working with the same efficiency as before.
• In the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, it cannot be made the sole basis to negate the loss of earning capacity.

Compensation assessment

• Even in the absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his ability to lead a normal life and to effectively engage in gainful employment.
• The appellant suffered disability to the extent of 65 per cent, which is established by the testimony of a doctor.
• The record shows that the claimant had spent Rs 31,409 on medical expenses.
•  It has also come on record that certain medical expenses were borne by ECHS (Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme), and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to seek reimbursement for those expenses.
• Keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and the treatment, besides the need for medicines during the rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed.
• Though the total bill proved to be Rs 31,409, yet in humble opinion, compensation under this head is assessed as Rs 1 lakh.
• He is dependent upon his wife for her assistance and is only able to perform basic self-care activities such as bathing, dressing, and eating.
• His speech remains limited and largely self-directed, and interruption tends to trigger verbal and, at times, physical aggression.
• As per the doctor’s opinion, the appellant would face extreme difficulty in performing simple tasks, and there is no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years.
• The appellant would need to be financially equipped to manage both the existing and prospective medical needs arising out of the condition; accordingly, the coort find appropriate to grant Rs 5 lakh under this head.
• On record, the disability of the appellant is at 65 per cent. This court awards Rs 10 lakh under the head of pain and suffering.
• Tribunal did not consider adequate compensation under the heads of special diet, conveyance charges and attendant charges; the amount is reassessed and enhanced to Rs 5 lakh.

Miscarriage of justice

• Advocate Neeraj Khanna for the appellant contended that the impugned award dated March 31, 2018, passed by the tribunal was wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly about the assessment of just compensation.
• It was submitted that, despite recording a finding of 100 per cent functional disability, the tribunal erred in applying only 25 per cent prospects instead of 30 per cent and committed a patent illegality in deducting 50 per cent towards personal expenses, which was impermissible in injury cases.
• Khanna argued that the award granted was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the lifelong impact caused to the appellant due to injuries.
• Placing reliance on principles governing the grant of compensation for injury cases, he contended that the award failed to account for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Insurance company

• Advocate Pradeep Kumar and Vipul Sharma for the Insurance company submitted that the award granted by the tribunal was vitiated by patent errors of law, thereby rendering it unsustainable.
• It was contended that the tribunal erroneously missed the inconsistencies in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of the FIR and the plea that alleged that vehicle in question was not involved in the occurrence.
• It was argued that the findings of 100 per cent functional disabilty was perserve since the medical evidence on record reflected only 65 per cent disability.
• It was argued that the claimant resumed employment post-accident, as evidenced by salary slips, thereby negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity.
• Subsequently, the computation of compensation was exaggerated and warranted the intervention of the court and absolution of the insurance company from the liability.

Inadequate compensation 

• The appellant, being injured, filed a claim petition before the tribunal praying for the grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on January 1, 2016, while alleging rash and negligent driving by the respondent.
• Based on the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the necessary issues and passed an order on March 31, 2018, granting compensation, after holding the driver of the offending vehicle to be negligent in driving the same.
• Being aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the appellant filed an appeal and sought enhancement of compensation on the ground of an inadequate award.
• The appellant mentioned in the appeal that the award is not commensurate with the injuries suffered, period of treatment, pain, suffering and medical expenses.
• The insurance company challenged the tribunal’s grant of compensation on the ground that it was excessive, thereby calling for a reduction.

Lost job opportunity for being ‘over-aged’: Orissa HC grants 5 lakh relief

The Orissa High Court recently awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation to a man who was denied public employment on the grounds of being over-aged, observing that where a scrupulous litigant suffers prejudice due to prolonged litigation, monetary compensation may be granted to undo the injustice.

A bench of Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash passed the order while allowing a plea of the petitioner who had challenged a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting his claim for engagement in the Railways.

“If a scrupulous litigant is prejudiced because of the long pendency of his litigation, the court can do justice on the principle of ex debito justitiae, and an argument to the contrary would result in right-thinking people losing faith in the judicial process. In matters like this, the award of some monetary compensation would undo the injustice by way of recompense. In our considered view, a sum of Rs 5,00,000 only, if paid to the Petitioner, injustice done to him can be undone,” the court noted.