HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SANGEETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same accident which was subject matter of M.A.C. Petition No. 10-S/2 of 2010 decided by the learned Tribunal on 28.9.2011 awarding a sum of Rs. 15,42,000/- and interest at the rate of 9% per annum if amount is not paid within 45 days of the award, from the date of award till its payment.

(2.) The case pleaded by the claimant-Smt. Sangeeta, who suffered injuries in the accident on 16.11.2009 and has been totally crippled for the rest of her life in an accident involving bus No. HP-07-0747 of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (H.R.T.C hereinafter) is that on 16.11.2009, the claimant was travelling from Shimla to her home. She boarded H.R.T.C. bus No.HP-07-0747 and there were 25/26 passengers travelling in the bus. It was pleaded that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner as a result it went off the road causing serious injuries to the claimant. Her back bone was fractured. She was rushed to the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla (I.G.M.C. for short), immediately where she remained admitted and was discharged on 18.12.2009. The lower portion of her body had developed paraplegia. Ext.PW4/A was the disability certificate issued by the Board constituted by the I.G.M.C. consisting of three doctors which included the Professor, Head of the Department of Orthopedics, Consultant and Registrar. They certified that she was suffering from 100% disability in relation to both lower limbs and spine. The learned Tribunal on the evidence granted her compensation as noticed . The claimant challenges the adequacy of compensation in FAO. No. 461 of 2011 and the H.R.T.C. challenge its liability to pay the compensation in F.A.O. No. 418 of 2011.

(3.) Adverting to the appeal preferred by the H.R.T.C, I notice that they challenge the amount awarded on the ground that the learned Tribunal has acted with conjecture without appreciating the evidence. The datum figure for income at Rs. 3,000/- has also been challenged. It was urged that she was 37 years of age and a multiplier of 15 should and ought to have been adopted. The learned Tribunal was in error in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- on account of medical expenses and Rs. 6,48,000/- on account of attendant charges.