Bhopal Singh vs Vijay Bir Singh & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6005 Del

$~27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of Decision: December 08, 2011
+     FAO NO.530/1999


      BHOPAL SINGH                        ..... Appellant
                             Through    Mr. K.R. Chawla, Advocate with
                                        Mr. Arvind Varma, Advocate

                    versus


      VIJAY BIR SINGH & ORS.             ..... Respondent
                    Through  Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate for
                             respondent No.2


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL


                             JUDGMENT

% G.P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This Appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the Appellant in an accident which took place on 03.09.1986. The Appellant's right hand was crushed on account of injuries suffered. There was amputation above elbow resulting into 70% permanent physical disability in respect of right upper limb.

2. The Appellant was working as a daily wager at that time and earning

`21.60P per day i.e. about ` 475/- per month. By impugned award, the Tribunal computed the loss of income at 70% of `475/- per month and applying the multiplier of 16, computed the loss of earning capacity to `64,000/-. A sum of `6,000/- was awarded towards general damages. The total compensation was, thus assessed by the Tribunal as `70,000/-.

3. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant are:

i) He was not granted any loss of earning upto the date of trial.

ii) He was not granted any compensation for loss of amenities of life.

iii) He was not granted any damages for pain and suffering.

iv) He was not granted any compensation towards the treatment and purchase of medicines.

4. The Appellant examined himself as PW1 during inquiry before the Tribunal. He stated that on the date of recording his statement, he was working with Flood Control Department and was getting a salary of `2423/- per month. At the time of hearing of this Appeal, Appellant's statement was recorded. He testified that his service was terminated on the date of the accident i.e. 03.09.1986 and he was taken back on the job on 11.11.1987. Thus, he remained without employment for a period of about one year and two months.

5. In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar And Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Tribunal has to find out whether permanent disability has caused functional disability resulting in the loss of his earning capacity and its extent. It was stated by the Appellant in his testimony as PW1 that he got employment in Flood Control Department and

thus there was no loss of earning capacity except for the one year and two months. The compensation of `64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was really towards the loss of amenities in life.

6. The Appellant has not been granted any compensation towards disfigurement, specifically towards pain and suffering, for treatment, special diet and conveyance. He was entitled to be compensated under all these heads. Considering that the accident took place in the year 1986, I would assess the compensation as under:-

      Loss of Amenities of Life                     ` 75,000/-

      Disfigurement                                 ` 25,000/-

      Pain and Suffering                            ` 25,000/-

      Special Diet                                  ` 2,500/-

      Conveyance                                    ` 2,500/-

      Treatment and Purchase of Medicines
      (No bills placed on record)                   ` 5,000/-

      Loss of Earning for the period of one
      year & two months @ `475/- per month
      (475 X 14)                                    ` 6,650/-



                                 Total              ` 1,41,650/-

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent that although a compensation of `70,000/- was awarded to the Appellant, yet a total sum of `1,81,000/- including interest was paid to him to satisfy the Tribunal's award. It is argued by the learned counsel that the Appellant initially sued the driver, owner and the insurer of vehicle No.DEP-5312 also. These Respondents were not served during the inquiry before the Tribunal for inaction on Appellant's part and, ultimately, the Appellant deleted

Respondents No.3 to 5 from the array of parties. It is argued that the Appeal filed by the Appellant was also dismissed in default and was subsequently restored. Therefore, contended the respondent's counsel that the Respondents should not be fastened with the liability to pay any interest on enhanced compensation.

8. I have perused the Trial Court record as also the record in this Appeal. In the facts and circumstances, the Appellant would be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount @ 7.5% for the period of five years only. The enhanced compensation of ` 71,650/- along with interest shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks. 40% of the compensation shall be released to the Appellant immediately and rest of the compensation shall be held in a Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.

9. The appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 08, 2011 pst