Delhi High Court
Shri Bhupender Kumar vs Shri Vinod Etc. on 3 June, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: June 1, 2010
Date of Order: 3rd June, 2010
MAC APP No. 356/2010
%
03.06.2010
SHRI BHUPENDER KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Advocate
versus
SHRI VINOD ETC. ..... Respondent
Through:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant assailing the award
dated 11th February, 2010 on the ground that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal was inadequate and insufficient.
2. The claimant suffered a permanent disability of 37% in relation to
his right leg in the accident which took place on 4 th April, 2005. He was
awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- by the Tribunal. In the appeal
the plea taken by the appellant is that the Tribunal wrongly considered his
disability of 37% in the right leg as over-all disability of 20% and
awarded compensation on the basis of 20% disability. It is submitted that
the appellant was working as a cook just before the accident and his leg
was an important aspect of his profession because a cook has to work
standing. The appellant also contended that the amount of Rs. 8,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards special diet and conveyance was
inadequate. Similarly, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded for pain and
agony was inadequate. The loss of earning awarded as Rs. 18,300/- was
not reasonable. The interest awarded @ 7.5% per annum was also not
proper.
3. A perusal of the award would show that the appellant had failed to
prove his employment and income before the Tribunal with the result that
the Tribunal considered the income of the appellant on the basis of
minimum wages i.e. Rs. 3044.90 per month. Since the appellant had not
been able to work due to accident for about six months, when he was
under treatment, the Tribunal granted loss of income @ minimum wages
for the period of six month amounting to Rs. 18,300/-. For calculating
future loss of income, the Tribunal took into account the present
minimum wages, doubled the same, and took average of the two and
rounded it off to Rs. 4600/- per month. The Tribunal took over all
disability of the body of the appellant to 20% since only one leg was
partially damaged and the appellant was in a position to carry on his
normal day to day activities, although, with some difficulty. The
Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18, which is the maximum multiplier
under 2nd Schedule of the M.V. Act, 1938 and granted Rs. 1,99,000/- as
damages towards loss of earning capacity.
4. I consider that there was no other better mode of calculating the
damages. The Tribunal had been rather generous to the appellant and in
terms of Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud & Ors, IV (2007) ACC 716
SC, Tribunal could have deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards personal
expenses etc. The Tribunal granted sufficient compensation towards
medical treatment, special diet and conveyance, pain and suffering and
loss of amenities of life. The total compensation of Rs. 2,70,300/-
granted by the Tribunal, in no way can be said to be inadequate.
5. I find no force in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J
June 03, 2010
acm
