Delhi High Court
Sh. Subhash Chand S/O Sh. Prabhu ... vs Sh. Rulda Singh S/O Sh. Niranjan ... on 12 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: II (2007) ACC 776
Author: V Gupta
Bench: V Gupta
JUDGMENT
V.B. Gupta, J.
1. s is an appeal filed by appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation award to Rs. 3,00,000/- along with cost and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 29.11.1997, Sh. Rakesh Kapoor Judge, MACT, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 79,900/- on account of injuries sustained by appellant in a road side accident, under the following heads:
1. Expenses on account of treatment/ Rs.5,000/-
purchase of medicines
2. For conveyance Rs. 2,500/-
3. For special diet Rs. 5,000/-
4. For pain and agony Rs. 5,000/-
5. For loss of Income Rs. 24,000/-
6. ompensation for the Rs. 38,400/-
--------------------
ermanent disability Rs. 79,900/-
---------------------
3. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
4. Brief facts of this case are that on 16.7.1993, at about 12.30 p.m., the appellant was walking on foot Along with one Sh. Sunil Kumar on extreme left hand side of Nagafgarh Road near Silvania Factory, Moti Nagar, Delhi. In the meanwhile, a bus bearing No. DL-IP-0076 driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligence manner and at a very fast speed, came from Shadipur side and struck against the appellant and his companion. Due to this impact, the appellant and his companion fell down on the road and the wheel of the bus passed over the right leg of the appellant. The bus in question is owned by respondent No. 2 and was not insured.
5. The grievance of the appellant is that Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly earning loss of the appellant at Rs. 200/- only on the basis of 10% permanent disability, whereas appellant suffered from permanent disability to the tune of 25% and Tribunal should have assessed the monthly financial loss to the tune of Rs. 500/-.
6. Secondly, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 35 years as appellant was 23 years of age at the time of accident. For pain and agony, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has only been awarded. Since appellant remained in the hospital for about two months and thereafter visited for one year as OPD patient. So, keeping in view the nature of injuries and continuous treatment, the Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 50,000/- on this count. On account of medicines, Rs. 10,000/- should have been awarded and similarly for special diet, appellant spent Rs. 12,000/- but the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- only. No compensation was awarded for availing the service of the attendant and for conveyance, appellant was awarded Rs. 2,500/- only. Lastly, interest of 6% only was awarded. However, keeping in view the various judgments of the High Courts on this point, the Tribunal ought to have granted 24% interest.
7. Appellant was doing private service and his monthly income was Rs. 2,000/- per month. PW-2, the employer of appellant stated that appellant was getting Rs. 2,000 per month as salary and other perks and he remained absent from his duty for about one year. The learned Tribunal accepted the salary of appellant as 2,000/- per month and since appellant remained absent from duty for one year, it granted him full compensation for the loss of his earning i.e. Rs. 24,000/-.
8. Regarding expenses incurred on treatment/purchase of medicines, appellant stated that he has spent Rs. 10,000/- on medicines, but he could not retain all the Bills and proved some of them, which are Exhibit PW5/2 to 31. Total of these Bills, come to Rs. 1,154/-. The appellant remained admitted in Ram Manohar Lohia, hospital which is a Govt. Hospital and as such his treatment was free of charge. In spite of this, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses incurred on treatment/purchase of medicines. This amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by learned Tribunal is quite reasonable.
9. With regard to conveyance, appellant has stated that after his discharge from the hospital, he has been visiting the hospital as an outdoor patient, once in a week and had gone in taxi for about 6-7 times. He used to spend Rs. 200/- per visit on taxi and thereafter, he used to visit hospital in auto rikshaw and has visited about 20 times, spending Rs 100/- per visit.
10. The learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.2,500/- on account of conveyance to the appellant which in my opinion, is quite sufficient.
11. With regard to the special diet, appellant stated that he took special diet for one year and spent Rs. 12,000- 13,000/-. There is nothing on record to show as to what special diet was prescribed by the doctor. However, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- on account of special diet, which is quite reasonable.
12. Now, coming to the permanent disability, appellant has placed on record copy of disability certificate Exhibit ' PW 5/3. The learned Tribunal observed that the appellant has failed to examine the doctor who has given him the disability certificate so that the permanent disability of the appellant in relation to whole of his body could be measured. Since the certificate has been granted for giving benefit to handicapped persons and describes the injury as 25% with regard to the right limb, the Tribunal opined that the permanent disability suffered by the appellant with respect to the whole body could not be more than 10%. As the appellant was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and keeping in view the disability suffered by him in the accident, his earning capacity has been reduced to 10% say Rs. 200/- per month. So, keeping in view the age of the appellant, the learned Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 16 years to arrive at compensation on account of permanent disability.
13. The multiplier of 16 adopted in this case is quite justified and keeping in view the various decisions of the Apex Court on this point, sum of Rs. 38,400/- is quite reasonable.
14. Lastly, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and agony suffered by the appellant. This amount is also quite reasonable, keeping in view the injuries sustained by the appellant.
15. With regard to the interest of 6% p.a. awarded by learned Tribunal, it is reasonable, keeping in view, the rate of inflation.
16. Looking from any angle, I do not find that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in this case was not just. Since the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is just and sufficient, no ground is made out for enhancement of the compensation and as such there is no merit in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
