Rs 95k to Rs 6.7 lakh: Punjab and Haryana High Court steps in for disabled labourer 21 years after life-altering accident

“Nonetheless, it stands duly established that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in the accident, remained hospitalised, and was incapacitated for a considerable period.. In these circumstances, mere absence of documentary proof cannot be a ground to deny just compensation, particularly when the nature of injuries and period of treatment clearly indicate loss of income,” the high court said.

• It is well settled that in cases of injury, a pragmatic approach is to be adopted while assessing medical expenses, as a claimant cannot be expected to preserve each and every bill during the course of treatment and recovery.
• Considering the nature of injuries, the treatment undertaken, and the likelihood of incidental and follow-up expenses, the compensation awarded by the tribunal warrants reassessment.
• Rs 4 lakh was found to be just and reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering of the man following the accident.

Justice Harkesh Manuja said that the claimant would have incurred substantial expenditure towards special diet, conveyance, and attendant charges.

• The court found Rs 60,000 to be just and reasonable for medical hospitalisation.
• For the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the period of immobilisation and bed rest, and the requirement of post-operative care, the high court awarded Rs 1 lakh.
• The claimant would have incurred substantial expenditure towards special diet, conveyance, and attendant charges.
• Considering the minimum wages prevailing in Haryana in 2005, and considering the rising cost of living and the likelihood of additional earnings beyond bare minimum wages even for unskilled labour in the unorganised sector, the high court assessed the income of the claimant at Rs 4,000 monthly.
• The man was bedridden for a period of about six months, losing an income of Rs 24,000.
• The man suffered 25 per cent permanent disability, and having regard to the nature of work performed by the claimant, there will be restrictions on his mobility and earning capacity.

‘Tribunal failed to apply principle’

• Appearing for the claimant, advocate Kunal Phogat argued that the compensation granted by the tribunal was grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the nature and extent of injuries.
• It was added that the tribunal failed to apply the settled principles governing the award of just compensation.
• Phogat emphasised, particularly concerning the fact that the man suffered 25% permanent disability due to restricted movement of the left shoulder arising from a malunited clavicle fracture, along with head injury resulting in recurrent loss of consciousness and mental impairment.
• Further, it was contended that Rs 50,000 was awarded towards disability, which was wholly insufficient.
• The tribunal erred in not awarding appropriate compensation under the heads of medical expenses, loss of income, and future earning capacity by applying a suitable multiplier and sought compensation of Rs 10 lakh.
• There was no representation on behalf of the other party.

‘Accident in 2005’

• The man suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place in November 2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of an offending vehicle.
• He approached the tribunal, which, after going through the claim petition by an order of  May 2008, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded Rs 95,000 as compensation.
• Being aggrieved by the same, he filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.