PAWAN KUMAR Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of the petition claiming compensation for injury to the claimant who got crushed between the stationary vehicle and the vehicle driven by the first respondent and owned by the second respondent. The first respondent has remained ex -parte in trial and notice to him was dispensed with. The second respondent has been served but he has put no appearance. The insurer impleaded him in this appeal is the insurer of the vehicle which was stationary. No negligence could be attributed to the stationary vehicle to make it liable for the accident occurred by the claimant coming in between the stationary vehicle which was lying parked and the vehicle which was driven by the first respondent.

(2.) THE person has suffered 100% disability and there is doctor's evidence that he cannot walk without support and it was on account of the spinal injury suffered in the accident. He was running a karyana shop and earning about Rs. 2000/ -. I will apply a multiplier of 16 and provide to him towards loss of income Rs. 3,84,000/ -. I will provide for Rs. 1 lac for pain and suffering and provide for Rs. 50,000/ - towards medical expenses. He would require a life long support for an attendant which I would take as requiring him to pay about Rs. 800/ - and apply also a multiplier of 16 so that it yields sufficient return to take care of the attendant expenses. I will also assess Rs. 1 lac towards loss of amenities. The various heads are tabulated as under: -