* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC APPEAL No.726/2006
Reserved on: 19.09.2011
Pronounced on: 23.09.2011
SHANE ALAM ...... Appellant
Through: Nemo
Versus
M/S METRO ROADLINES & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? No
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("the Act" for short) against the award dated 11.7.2006 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) whereby a sum of `62,409/- was awarded to the appellant as compensation on account of injuries which he sustained in a road accident which took place on 12.03.2004 when he was going on his motorcycle and was struck by a tanker bearing registration number DL-IG-A1816. The appellant allegedly sustained grievous injuries and also disability to the extent of 26% of the left lower limb. The Tribunal though did not believe the disability certificate Ex.PW1/12, but conceded to assess the functional MAC APPEAL No726/2006 Page 1 of 4 disability of the deceased to the extent of 5%. He assessed the monthly income of the appellant as `2500/-, and assessed the loss of income on account of 5% disability to be `125 per month. The claimant/ appellant being 18 years of age, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed the loss of earning capacity/ disability of `24,000 [125x12x16]. He also noted that the claimant remained jobless for 4-5 months and awarded compensation of `10,000/- on account of loss of earning during the period of treatment. A sum of `15,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering; `909 towards medical expenses, `5,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance; `2500 towards expenses on attendant. All these components made a total sum of `62,409/-. The challenge is made by the appellant/claimant to the awarded sum alleging compensation to be on much lower side. The appellant/ claimant averred that it was on the directions of the Tribunal that his disability as 26% was assessed by GTB Hospital vide certificate Ex.PW1/12. The appellant averred that he being the junk dealer required constant work and the disability affected his working and earning capacity. In view of the fact that the disability was assessed by the hospital on the direction of the Court vide certificate Ex.PW1/12 which was directly sent by the hospital to the Court, there remained no need for formal proof of the said certificate. If the Court had any reservation, it ought to have summoned the doctor from GTB Hospital who had examined the claimant on its directions. There was no fault of the appellant not being able to summon the doctor for proving the disability certificate which was stated to be directly sent by the hospital MAC APPEAL No726/2006 Page 2 of 4 to the Court. However, the disability of 26% of lower limb could not be taken to be functional disability of the claimant/ appellant. Keeping in view of the nature of the injuries sustained and the nature of business, the disability of 26% of lower limb can be taken to be equivalent to 10% of the whole body and that being so, the functional disability of the appellant/ claimant could be taken to be 10% instead of 5%.
2. The appellant was aged 18 years and was earning `2500/- per month. Though he was not in any stable business, but keeping in view his age and the inflationary trends and rising prices, it cannot be forgotten that with the passage of time, he would have earned more than `2500/- per month had he not received the injuries. It can be estimated that the appellant would have made 50% increase in his income in due course of time and if that being so his monthly income would have been 2500+3750 divided by 2 = 3125 per month. i.e. `37,500/- p.a.. In this view of the matter, the loss of earning on account of functional disability of 10% would be `312.50 or say `315 per month i.e. `3780 per annum.
3. In this view of the matter, the loss of earning during the period of treatment would be `12,500/- (2500x5) instead of `10,000/-. Keeping in view the age of the appellant/ claimant as 18 years, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable instead of 16. Thus, the total loss of earnings due to disability comes to `68,040/- instead of `24000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of `909 as towards medical expenses while ignoring the fact that ordinarily people of the class of the appellant MAC APPEAL No726/2006 Page 3 of 4 either do not obtain the bills or preserve the same. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, a sum of `5,000/- is estimated as expenses on account of medical treatment. A compensation of `2500/- on account of attendant also appears to be on the lower side and keeping in view the period of his treatment, a sum of `8000/- is estimated as compensation on this count. Again keeping in view the totality of the facts particularly the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment, a sum of `15,000/- awarded on account pain and sufferings is also seen to be on lower side and the same is enhanced to `25000/-. In view of this, the appellant is found to be entitled to `1,28,540/- which the respondent /insurance company is liable to pay after adjusting the amount already paid/ deposited. The enhanced amount of compensation be paid by the insurance company within 30 days from today and thereafter with interest @ 7.5% per annum till realization.
4. The appeal stands disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) September 23 , 2011 rd MAC APPEAL No726/2006 Page 4 of 4