P.R. Sharma vs Avneesh Kumar
2007 Latest Caselaw 79 Del

ORDER

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. A limited issue arises for consideration in the appeal filed by the registered owner of the vehicle in question, who unfortunately did not get the vehicle insured. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive or not.

2. The injured was working as a Constable with the Delhi Police. The accident took place on 19.12.1991.

3. Total award is in sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-. The only component of the award which is challenged is the one relating to the loss of future income whereunder Rs. 1,83,967/- have been awarded.

4. Petitioner was 23 years of age. In view of the disability certificate learned Tribunal has held that since the same shows disability to be 45%, 45% of the earnings would be treated as loss of future income.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant shows that being a Constable in the Delhi Police, injured suffered no pecuniary loss for the reason evidence on record establishes that he suffered no cut in pay nor was he shifted to a job in the lower pay-scale.

6. Confronted with the situation, Counsel forthe injured/respondent Mr. B.S. Nain submitted that the injury sustained by the respondent has affected his prospects of promotion.

7. No evidence has been brought on record that the respondent suffered a disability disentitling him to be promoted.

8. On being questioned, whether colleagues of the respondent, junior to him, have been promoted as Head Constable, Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is under suspension for dereliction of duty.

9. This brings out the uncertainties of the future prospects.

10. A Government servant may do acts of dereliction of duty or may violate service rules. He may lose his job.

11. Today, it is in the realm of reality that the respondent is suspended. Had he not suffered an accident, respondent would have suffered disability of promotion due to his being suspended.

12. Future prospects of promotion have to be established by bringing on record the service rules.

13. The ACRs must be established to show that the Government servant was attaining the qualifying grade.

14. As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as : , Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and Ors. evidence of future prospects is the sine qua non for awarding the compensation due to loss of future prospects.

15. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of reducing the sum awarded under the award by Rs. 1,83,967/-.

16. I note that on 13.9.2006 Rs. 1.5 lacs were released to the respondent.

17. Appellant would be entitled to the restitution of the excess amount received by the respondent.

18. No costs.