Laxman Singh vs Rajender Singh And Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 4742 Del

                                                       UNREPORTABLE

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         MAC App. No.247/2008

                               Date of Decision: October 07, 2010


       LAXMAN SINGH                 ..... Appellants
                         through Mr. T N Tripathi with Mr. Ranjeet
                         Singh, Advocate along with appellant in person

                         versus

       RAJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS              ..... Respondents
                       through Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate
                       for respondent no.3.
                       Mr. Udai Raj Singh, Advocate for respondent
                       no.1.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the 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

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that even

though as per the medical disability certificate EX-PW-1/4, the

appellant has been found disabled by 88% vis-a-vis both his lower

limbs, yet, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ignoring the

percentage of disability as given in the disability certificate has taken

his disability to be 50% for the purpose of calculating loss of earning

due to disability. The appellant is present in person. Though, he is able

to stand on his feet, but he does not have a steady walk and according

to his counsel, he cannot even stand for long. His counsel also states

that he is not doing any job and is totally dependent on his family

members for his livelihood.

MACA No.247/2008 Page 1 On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the

Insurance Company that since the disability of 88% has not been

assessed qua the whole body, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by

assuming the disability vis-a-vis the whole body as 50% has made no

mistake. It is also submitted that even if the appellant is not able to

stand for long on his legs, it cannot be believed that he is sitting idle at

home because there are many a jobs which do not require movement

of legs and can be performed in sitting posture.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do agree with the

learned counsel for the Insurance Company that since 88% disability of

the appellant assessed by the Medical Board is in relation to both the

lower limbs only the same qua the whole body cannot be the same. It

has to be less. At the same time, I also feel that having regard to the

nature of disability suffered by the appellant, the same vis-a-vis the

whole body, has to be more than 50%.

At his stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that the

appellant will be satisfied if he is awarded a further sum of ` 1 lac for

loss of income on account of disability. The counsel for the appellant

also states that he will not claim any interest on the said amount.

In view of the above, I direct the Insurance Company to pay a

further sum of ` 1 lac to the appellant within four weeks from now.

The appeal is disposed of. Dasti.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

OCTOBER 07, 2010
PC




MACA No.247/2008                                                       Page 2