Rajesh Kumar vs Ramesh Budha & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 4663 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 21.09.2011

+                   MAC Appeal No 61/2010

RAJESH KUMAR
                                               ...........Appellant
                        Through:    Ms. Suman M. Rawat,
                                    Advocate.

                   Versus

RAMESH BUDHA & OTHERS
                                               ..........Respondents
                        Through:    Mr. Pankaj Seth & Ms. Neerja
                                    Sachdeva,    Advocates   for
                                    respondent No. 3.

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 30.10.2009 vide

which the learned MACT had awarded compensation in the sum of

Rs.3,78,075/- in favour of the injured/petitioner.

2 The Award has been impugned by the petitioner on the

ground that future prospects having not been considered; the

petitioner had remained under treatment for about two years and

he could not earn in this intervening period, loss of income for two

years should have been granted; the Tribunal has given a paltry

amount under the head of 'pain, shock and suffering'; that should

be increased; lastly it has been averred that since the petitioner

was a labourer, he had suffered 100% disability for the reason

that his right foot had been crushed and the MACT considered his

disability only at 45% has committed an illegality. These are the

grounds of challenge.

3 Record shows that in an accident which has occurred on

06.02.2006, the injured who was working as a labourer suffered

an injury on his right foot; it was bleeding extensively; he taken to

the Sahi Hospital, Jangpura, New Delhi where he remained

admitted from 06.02.2006 to 24.02.2006; his foot was operated

and dressings on his foot was started; he was again taken to Sahi

Hospital where he remained admitted from 13.03.2006 to

30.03.2006 where skin grafting had to be conducted. The

petitioner was also remained admitted in Safdarjung Hospital

from 11.12.2006 to 16.12.2006 and then again from 26.11.2007 to

17.12.2007 meaning thereby that the petitioner remained in

hospital for about 55 days. His permanent disability as per

medical record was assessed at 45% by the medical board; this

was rightly assessed keeping in view the fact that the right lower

ankle had been fractured and then grafted. He was aged 35 years

on the date of the accident and was earning about Rs.5,000/- per

month. The petitioner has been awarded damages under four

heads. Under the non-pecuniary head for 'loss of earning capacity'

as sum of Rs.3,45,000/- has been awarded; this formula arrived at

strictly in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in

the judgment reported as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another

(2011) 1 SCC 343. The figure of Rs.4,000/- per month had been

taken into account and the annual income had been adjudged at

Rs.48,000/- per year to which multiplier of 16 in terms of the IInd

Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act was made applicable taking

into account the permanent disability of 45%. The sum of

Rs.3,45,000/- awarded under this head suffers from no infirmity.

Medicines for which bills have been furnished had been taken into

account and an amount of Rs.8,075/- had been awarded; for pain,

shock and suffering had also been taken into account for which a

sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded for the trauma he had

suffered as also the conveyance charges and keeping in view the

status of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been rightly

awarded under the head of 'conveyance and special diet'. Award

in no manner suffers from any infirmity. A bonanza is not to be

given. Appeal is without any merit.

4     Dismissed.



                                      INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
a