2 decades after road accident, Punjab and Haryana HC hikes victim’s compensation by 6 times
The Punjab and Haryana High Court says even accidents without a vehicle collision must be fairly assessed and that payouts cannot be token.
The Punjab and Haryana HC ordered the FCI to treat an employee’s suspension as duty time, ruling his bribery acquittal was "honorable" due to a lack of evidence. (File) Nearly two decades after a bus conductor was left with permanent disability in a road accident involving a mule, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has enhanced his compensation almost sixfold, holding that the earlier award was “grossly meagre” and failed to reflect the seriousness of his injuries.
Justice Harkesh Manuja reassessed the compensation payable to Ram Singh, a conductor who suffered 40 per cent permanent disability when the bus he was travelling in first hit a mule and then crashed into a roadside tree near Chikanwas village in Haryana’s Bhiwani district in 2006. Setting aside the award of Rs 1 lakh granted by a Bhiwani Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the court fixed the total compensation at Rs 5,91,500, along with a higher rate of interest.
The accident took place around 3.30 am on the intervening night of November 26 and 27, 2006, when the bus, travelling from Sirsa to Bhiwani with a load of plastic waste, went out of control. The court noted that a mule suddenly came onto the road and the driver was momentarily blinded by the headlights of an oncoming vehicle, causing the bus to first hit the animal, then strike a tree and overturn.
While the tribunal had held the driver negligent and awarded Rs 1 lakh with 7.5 per cent interest, the high court found the amount wholly disproportionate to the injuries suffered. Ram Singh had remained hospitalised for nearly a month, was readmitted later, and was left with lasting damage to his right foot.
A key issue before the court was the legal route under which the claim had been decided. Justice Manuja observed that since the accident did not involve a collision with another vehicle, it could not strictly be treated as a no-fault claim. However, the court exercised its powers to treat the matter as a fault-based claim, holding that victims of such accidents cannot be denied just compensation merely because of the manner in which the claim was initially filed.
Victims can’t be expected to preserve every bill
On medical expenses, the high court took note of the fact that accident victims cannot be expected to preserve every bill or receipt. Though the documented medical bills came to around Rs 45,800, the court assessed medical expenses at Rs 1.5 lakh, keeping in view the nature of injuries, the period of hospitalisation, and the cost of treatment.
The high court also faulted the tribunal for rejecting loss of income on the ground that there was no documentary proof of earnings. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, it held that notional income must be realistically assessed, particularly for workers in the unorganised sector. The court fixed Ram Singh’s notional income at Rs 3,000 per month, noting that he was 45 years old at the time and would have been unable to work for several months after the accident.
Taking his functional disability at 35 per cent and adding future income prospects, the court calculated Rs 2,20,500 towards future loss of earnings. It also awarded Rs 1 lakh for special diet, conveyance, and attendant charges, and another Rs 1 lakh for pain and suffering.
In all, the compensation was fixed at Rs 5,91,500, an enhancement of Rs 4,91,500 over the tribunal’s award. The court raised the interest rate to 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim, directing that if the amount is not paid within three months, it will thereafter carry interest at 12 per cent per annum.
Share
