R-11/(P-III)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.518/2006
% Date of decision: 3rd February, 2012
U.P.S.R.T.C. ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv.
versus
RAJINDER KUMAR LUTHRA ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
MAC.APP.No.518/2006 and CM No.8503/2006
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of `2,63,492/- has been awarded to the respondent. The appellant seeks reduction of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 1st March, 2003 resulted in grievous injuries to the respondent who was traveling in U.P. Roadways bus No.UP-IS-L-7603 which hit against the stationary truck. The respondent suffered fracture of both his legs. He underwent two operations, one at Sparsh Fracture and Physiotherapy Centre at Haridwar where he was hospitalized for 13 days and the other at Muni Mayaram Jain Hospital in Delhi where he was hospitalized for 4-5 days. A rod was MAC.APP.No.518/2006 Page 1 of 4 inserted in the left leg and screws were inserted in the right leg of the respondent.
3. The respondent was a goldsmith earning `6,000/- per month. The respondent proved his goldsmith licence, Ex.PW- 1/77. The disability of the respondent was assessed to be 20% as per the disability certificate Ex.PW1/10. The respondent deposed that he was not able to use his legs for pulling the gold wire and was unable to pursue his profession as a goldsmith.
4. The Claims Tribunal awarded `52,923/- towards expenditure on medicines, `10,000/- towards travelling and attendant expenses, `10,000/- towards special diet, `25,000/- towards pain and agony, `19,247.4 towards loss of income and `1,46,322/- towards loss of future income due to permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal applied the minimum wages and added 50% towards rise in cost of living index for computation of loss of income due to permanent disability.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has made following submissions at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) The respondent has not impleaded the driver/owner and insurance company of the stationary truck who was negligent in parking on the wrong side.
MAC.APP.No.518/2006 Page 2 of 4
(ii) The minimum wages at the relevant time was `3,207/- whereas the Claims Tribunal has taken `3,695/- into consideration.
(iii) The increase in minimum wages due to rise in the cost of living index should not be taken into consideration.
6. The respondent was traveling in UP Roadways bus which hit a stationary truck. However, the FIR was registered only against the UP Roadways bus and, therefore, the non- impleadment of the driver and the owner of the stationary truck cannot be faulted with. Even otherwise, the liability of the joint tort feasors is joint and several.
7. With respect to computation of compensation, this Court find that the respondent proved by sufficient evidence that he was a goldsmith. The respondent proved the goldsmith licence as Ex.PW1/77. The respondent deposed on oath before the Claims Tribunal that he was earning `6,000/- per month in his profession. He further deposed that he is unable to carry his profession any more due to the permanent disability in his legs. In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the respondent as `6,000/- per month and there was no justification in taking the minimum wages into consideration. Applying Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act, the award of the Claims Tribunal is upheld MAC.APP.No.518/2006 Page 3 of 4 though not for the reasons mentioned therein but for the reasons stated above as there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the occupation and income of the respondent. This Court upholds the income of `5,543/- per month of the respondent duly proved by him.
8. This Court also notices that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities of life and disfiguration. However, since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent and the respondent has not filed any cross-objections, the enhancement of compensation is not warranted.
9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 03, 2012 mk MAC.APP.No.518/2006 Page 4 of 4