* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 20.7.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No.14/2009
SANJEEV BEHAL ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Manjeet Singh Chawla,
Advocate.
Versus
SRI CHAND & ORS. ..........Respondents
Through: Ms.Sonia Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has impugned the Award dated 27.9.2008 which had awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,54,000/- in favour of the claimants. The claimants was the injured himself namely Sanjeev Behal; fingers of his right foot had been amputated pursuant to which he had undergone a plastic surgery. MAC APPEAL No.14/2009 Page 1 of 5
2. The Award has been impugned on the following four grounds.
3. Dressing charges of Rs.12000/- were inadequate when bills in the sum of Rs.1,76,000/- had been proved in the version of PW-6.
Testimony of PW-6 is relevant on this count. He had produced Ex.PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/B which were the dressing charges meted out to the patient by PW-6. In his cross- examination PW-6 had admitted that these documents were prepared by him by the same pen and on the same day. As per his version he was a homeopathic doctor but no record has been proved of his qualification or his having practiced in the said profession. Tribunal had correctly noted that these bills are to the tune of Rs.1,76,080/- and these being the dressing charges being claimed by the petitioner when even as per his own admission the entire treatment including the surgery and amputations were in the sum of Rs.77,770/-. The Tribunal had also noted that PW-6 could not explain as to for what type of treatment the dresser had charged him Rs.1,76,080/- within a span of 10 months; no detail has been mentioned or stated by him. Testimony of PW-6 and the documentary evidence Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B was rightly rejected. The dressing charges granted in the sum of Rs.12000/- MAC APPEAL No.14/2009 Page 2 of 5 for a period of 10 months would be approximately Rs.1200/- per month which is fair and this amount calls for no interference.
4. The second contention raised by the appellant is that future prospects had not been considered by the court although the court had noted that the victim had suffered a 25% disability in terms of the disability certificate Ex.PW-2/A; yet 10% functional disability had alone been considered. Contention being that the calculation under the head of loss of dependency had ignored future prospects of the injured. The claimant was 37 of years of age on the date of the accident. Since there was no proof of income adduced by him and his educational qualification was of 12th standard, minimum wages for a matriculate was considered as on relevant date which was Rs.3300/- per month. The disability certificate showed that the patient had suffered a 25% disability of the right lower limb; there was an amputation of all the toes of his right foot; the petitioner was stated to be working along with his father in a ball bearing business. It was not his case that his job required him to stand on his legs all the time; his parents work remained unaffected. Keeping in view the nature of the work carried out by the appellant the functional loss was thus rightly assessed at 10%. The compensation under this head was MAC APPEAL No.14/2009 Page 3 of 5 calculated as follows:
Rs.3300 x 12 x 16 x 10/100= Rs.63360 This figure is in conformity with the law of the Apex Court in JT 2010(13) SC 38 Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. It suffers from no infirmity. Disability for future years had been considered.
5. The next grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no charges for keeping a servant has been given to the petitioner although the petitioner has come into witness box and deposed that he had to keep a servant and he was paying him Rs.1000/- per month. Victim was a 37 years of age and the nature of the injury suffered by him has been detailed supra; dressing charges have been awarded. Keeping in view the fact that the salary of the victim has been assessed at Rs.3300/- per month it would be difficult to conceive that the victim could pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month as servant charges. This argument has no merit.
6. The last argument propounded by the learned counsel for the appellant is that conveyance has only been awarded in the sum of Rs.10,000/- whereas the claimant was a patient for 10 months and he had to go to hospital; conveyance charges in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for this 10 month period is inadequate. This MAC APPEAL No.14/2009 Page 4 of 5 amount of Rs.10,000/- appears to be calculated at Rs.1000/- per month. Again keeping in view the status of the victim conveyance charges awarded in the sum of Rs.10,000/- appears to be adequate.
7. Appeal is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 20, 2011 nandan MAC APPEAL No.14/2009 Page 5 of 5