Shane Alam vs M/S Metro Roadlines & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4740 Del

*              THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           MAC APPEAL No.726/2006

                                              Reserved on: 19.09.2011
                                            Pronounced on: 23.09.2011

SHANE ALAM                                                 ...... Appellant

                            Through:    Nemo

                                   Versus

M/S METRO ROADLINES & ANR.                            ...... 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 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act

("the Act" for short) against the award dated 11.7.2006 of the learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) whereby a sum

of `62,409/- was awarded to the appellant as compensation on account

of injuries which he sustained in a road accident which took place on

12.03.2004 when he was going on his motorcycle and was struck by a

tanker bearing registration number DL-IG-A1816. The appellant

allegedly sustained grievous injuries and also disability to the extent of

26% of the left lower limb. The Tribunal though did not believe the

disability certificate Ex.PW1/12, but conceded to assess the functional

disability of the deceased to the extent of 5%. He assessed the monthly

income of the appellant as `2500/-, and assessed the loss of income on

account of 5% disability to be `125 per month. The claimant/ appellant

being 18 years of age, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and

assessed the loss of earning capacity/ disability of `24,000

[125x12x16]. He also noted that the claimant remained jobless for 4-5

months and awarded compensation of `10,000/- on account of loss of

earning during the period of treatment. A sum of `15,000/- was

awarded towards pain and suffering; `909 towards medical expenses,

`5,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance; `2500 towards

expenses on attendant. All these components made a total sum of

`62,409/-. The challenge is made by the appellant/claimant to the

awarded sum alleging compensation to be on much lower side. The

appellant/ claimant averred that it was on the directions of the Tribunal

that his disability as 26% was assessed by GTB Hospital vide certificate

Ex.PW1/12. The appellant averred that he being the junk dealer

required constant work and the disability affected his working and

earning capacity. In view of the fact that the disability was assessed by

the hospital on the direction of the Court vide certificate Ex.PW1/12

which was directly sent by the hospital to the Court, there remained no

need for formal proof of the said certificate. If the Court had any

reservation, it ought to have summoned the doctor from GTB Hospital

who had examined the claimant on its directions. There was no fault of

the appellant not being able to summon the doctor for proving the

disability certificate which was stated to be directly sent by the hospital

to the Court. However, the disability of 26% of lower limb could not be

taken to be functional disability of the claimant/ appellant. Keeping in

view of the nature of the injuries sustained and the nature of business,

the disability of 26% of lower limb can be taken to be equivalent to 10%

of the whole body and that being so, the functional disability of the

appellant/ claimant could be taken to be 10% instead of 5%.

2. The appellant was aged 18 years and was earning `2500/- per

month. Though he was not in any stable business, but keeping in view

his age and the inflationary trends and rising prices, it cannot be

forgotten that with the passage of time, he would have earned more

than `2500/- per month had he not received the injuries. It can be

estimated that the appellant would have made 50% increase in his

income in due course of time and if that being so his monthly income

would have been 2500+3750 divided by 2 = 3125 per month. i.e.

`37,500/- p.a.. In this view of the matter, the loss of earning on account

of functional disability of 10% would be `312.50 or say `315 per month

i.e. `3780 per annum.

3. In this view of the matter, the loss of earning during the period of

treatment would be `12,500/- (2500x5) instead of `10,000/-. Keeping in

view the age of the appellant/ claimant as 18 years, the multiplier of 18

would be applicable instead of 16. Thus, the total loss of earnings due

to disability comes to `68,040/- instead of `24000/-. The Tribunal has

awarded a meager amount of `909 as towards medical expenses while

ignoring the fact that ordinarily people of the class of the appellant

either do not obtain the bills or preserve the same. Keeping in view the

nature of injuries and the period of treatment, a sum of `5,000/- is

estimated as expenses on account of medical treatment. A

compensation of `2500/- on account of attendant also appears to be on

the lower side and keeping in view the period of his treatment, a sum of

`8000/- is estimated as compensation on this count. Again keeping in

view the totality of the facts particularly the nature of the injuries and

the period of treatment, a sum of `15,000/- awarded on account pain

and sufferings is also seen to be on lower side and the same is

enhanced to `25000/-. In view of this, the appellant is found to be

entitled to `1,28,540/- which the respondent /insurance company is

liable to pay after adjusting the amount already paid/ deposited. The

enhanced amount of compensation be paid by the insurance company

within 30 days from today and thereafter with interest @ 7.5% per

annum till realization.

4. The appeal stands disposed of.

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