KAPIL SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Kapil Sehgal seeks enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered by him on 23.01.2010 in a motor vehicle accident with Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration no. HR-57-1390 (later referred to as 'the offending vehicle'), which was insured with respondent no. 4- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (later referred to as 'the Tribunal') awarded compensation of Rs. 1,77,321/-, which was computed as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_365_LAWS(P&H)2_2018_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the claimantappellant had suffered grievous injuries and even the Tribunal has accepted this fact that he remained on bed for about six months. Appellant was employed as computer operator. Due to injuries and disabilities he is not in a position to perform his job with full vigor and has suffered loss of future prospects. Amount of compensation of Rs. 45000/- for 30% disability suffered by the appellant is also on lower side and calls for upward revision. The Tribunal has not allowed any compensation towards expenses of attendant, who took care of the appellant for a period of about six months. Under the heads of loss of amenities of life and future medical treatment, no compensation was allowed. The Tribunal had also to adopt multiplier method while computing amount of compensation for the disability suffered by the appellant. Dr. Kishan R. Bhagwat while appearing as PW-2 has stated that the appellant, who was unmarried at the time of accident, might have difficulty in normal sexual activities and no compensation on this score was allowed.

(3.) Learned DAG, Haryana and learned counsel for respondent no. 4-Insurance Company have argued that the Tribunal has examined case of appellant minutely and awarded adequate and reasonable amount of compensation. Though, appellant had suffered 30% disability, but the Tribunal has taken it as 15% functional disability as it pertained to lower limb, which in no manner effects the job of appellant, who was employed as a computer operator. The Tribunal has allowed compensation of Rs. 37,500/- under the head of pain and suffering by taking care of each injury suffered by the appellant and this amount is adequate. No evidence was produced before the Tribunal to prove that any attendant was engaged to look after the appellant, as such non-grant of any compensation on this score is immaterial.