Narender Kumar Sabharwal vs Rama Kant Dubey Etc.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4737 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                       MAC APPEAL No.622/2006

                                           Reserved on: 19.09.2011
                                          Date of Order: 23.09.2011

NARENDER KUMAR SABHARWAL                                ...... Appellant

                         Through:     Nemo

                                Versus
RAMA KANT DUBEY ETC.                                ...... Respondents

                        Through:     Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1.  Whether 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

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant against an award

dated 1.5.2006 whereby a sum of `1,03,813/- was awarded as

compensation to the appellant in the claim petition number 104/2006

which he filed for seeking compensation on account of injuries which he

sustained in a road accident which took place on 16.07.1992 when he

was going on his two-wheeler scooter and was struck by a three-

wheeler scooter being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner. The aforesaid compensation was made up for `8,813/- on

account of loss of income for 7 months @ `1,259/- per month, `20,000/-

towards conveyance expenses, `30,000/- towards pain and sufferings

and `10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and `35,000/- on account

of expenses incurred on medicines and special diet and future medical

expenses. The appellant has challenged the impugned award alleging

the compensation to be on much lower side. The appellant has claimed

his income to be `4,000/- per month from his self-employed business of

motor vehicle parts. Since the appellant was unable to produce any

evidence of his income from his business, the learned Tribunal

estimated his income based on the prescribed minimum wages @

`1,259/- per month for the year 1992. The appellant was aged 55 years

at the time of accident and taking his income to be `1,259/- based on

the minimum wages is apparently unjust inasmuch as the learned

Tribunal ought to have considered the rise in price index and

inflationary trends and that the minimum wages ought to have

increased. Even though the appellant was unable to prove by way of

any documentary evidence that he was engaged in any self-employed

business of motor parts and because of that his income was to be taken

as the prescribed minimum wages, his income would have increased to

some extent with the passage of time. It can be estimated that 50%

minimum wages would have increased with the passage of time and

that being so, the average monthly income of the deceased can be

assessed as `1,260+1890 divided by 2 = `1575 per month and

`18,900/- per annum. In this view of the matter, the loss of income for 7

months would be `11,025/- instead of `8,813/-. The compensation of

`10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life also seems to be on lower

side. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries and the period of

treatment, the compensation could be assessed at `40,000/- instead of

`10,000/-. The appellant had claimed `90,000/- towards expenses on

medical treatment and special diet. The Tribunal had taken note of the

fact that the appellant had undergone surgery three times and

remained hospitalized. He has given a consolidated sum of `35,000/-

towards medical expenses and special diet. Though the appellant had

not claimed separate compensation for special diet and was unable to

produce the bills of `90,000/-, the compensation of `35,000/- as

awarded by the Tribunal would be taken as towards medical expenses.

A sum of `15,000/-, is estimated compensation on account of special

diet separately. Thus, the appellant is entitled to total enhanced

compensation of `47,212/-.

2. On this count, the challenge is also made to the order of the

Tribunal ordering of `70,000/- to be kept in nationalized bank for a

period of 10 years. This part of the award passed by the Tribunal is

apparently unjust and harsh inasmuch as the appellant having suffered

serious injuries would require the compensation not only for his

livelihood but also for doing some commercial and business activities.

There would not be any condition in the amount of compensation that

would be payable to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned award

is modified in the manner indicated above and the appellant would be

entitled to aforesaid enhanced compensation which would be payable

by the respondent no.3/Insurance company after adjusting the

compensation as already paid within 30 days and thereafter with

interest @ 7.5% per annum on the said amount till realization.

3. The appeal stands disposed of.

M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) September 23, 2011/rd