Sanjeev Behal vs Sri Chand & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3454 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 20.7.2011


+                  MAC APPEAL No.14/2009


SANJEEV BEHAL                                  ...........Appellant
                         Through:    Mr.Manjeet Singh Chawla,
                                     Advocate.

                   Versus

SRI CHAND & ORS.                               ..........Respondents
                         Through:    Ms.Sonia Sharma, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes



INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has impugned the Award dated 27.9.2008 which

had awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,54,000/- in favour

of the claimants. The claimants was the injured himself namely

Sanjeev Behal; fingers of his right foot had been amputated

pursuant to which he had undergone a plastic surgery.

2. The Award has been impugned on the following four

grounds.

3. Dressing charges of Rs.12000/- were inadequate when bills

in the sum of Rs.1,76,000/- had been proved in the version of

PW-6.

Testimony of PW-6 is relevant on this count. He had

produced Ex.PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/B which were the dressing

charges meted out to the patient by PW-6. In his cross-

examination PW-6 had admitted that these documents were

prepared by him by the same pen and on the same day. As per

his version he was a homeopathic doctor but no record has been

proved of his qualification or his having practiced in the said

profession. Tribunal had correctly noted that these bills are to the

tune of Rs.1,76,080/- and these being the dressing charges being

claimed by the petitioner when even as per his own admission the

entire treatment including the surgery and amputations were in

the sum of Rs.77,770/-. The Tribunal had also noted that PW-6

could not explain as to for what type of treatment the dresser had

charged him Rs.1,76,080/- within a span of 10 months; no detail

has been mentioned or stated by him. Testimony of PW-6 and the

documentary evidence Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B was rightly

rejected. The dressing charges granted in the sum of Rs.12000/-

for a period of 10 months would be approximately Rs.1200/- per

month which is fair and this amount calls for no interference.

4. The second contention raised by the appellant is that future

prospects had not been considered by the court although the

court had noted that the victim had suffered a 25% disability in

terms of the disability certificate Ex.PW-2/A; yet 10% functional

disability had alone been considered. Contention being that the

calculation under the head of loss of dependency had ignored

future prospects of the injured. The claimant was 37 of years of

age on the date of the accident. Since there was no proof of

income adduced by him and his educational qualification was of

12th standard, minimum wages for a matriculate was considered

as on relevant date which was Rs.3300/- per month. The disability

certificate showed that the patient had suffered a 25% disability of

the right lower limb; there was an amputation of all the toes of his

right foot; the petitioner was stated to be working along with his

father in a ball bearing business. It was not his case that his job

required him to stand on his legs all the time; his parents work

remained unaffected. Keeping in view the nature of the work

carried out by the appellant the functional loss was thus rightly

assessed at 10%. The compensation under this head was

calculated as follows:

Rs.3300 x 12 x 16 x 10/100= Rs.63360

This figure is in conformity with the law of the Apex Court in

JT 2010(13) SC 38 Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. It suffers

from no infirmity. Disability for future years had been considered.

5. The next grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant

is that no charges for keeping a servant has been given to the

petitioner although the petitioner has come into witness box and

deposed that he had to keep a servant and he was paying him

Rs.1000/- per month. Victim was a 37 years of age and the nature

of the injury suffered by him has been detailed supra; dressing

charges have been awarded. Keeping in view the fact that the

salary of the victim has been assessed at Rs.3300/- per month it

would be difficult to conceive that the victim could pay a sum of

Rs.1,000/- per month as servant charges. This argument has no

merit.

6. The last argument propounded by the learned counsel for

the appellant is that conveyance has only been awarded in the

sum of Rs.10,000/- whereas the claimant was a patient for 10

months and he had to go to hospital; conveyance charges in the

sum of Rs.10,000/- for this 10 month period is inadequate. This

amount of Rs.10,000/- appears to be calculated at Rs.1000/- per

month. Again keeping in view the status of the victim conveyance

charges awarded in the sum of Rs.10,000/- appears to be

adequate.

7. Appeal is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

JULY 20, 2011 nandan