Delhi High Court
Sh. Anuj Sharma vs Ahsanul Haq & Ors. on 30 September, 2011
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC APPEAL No.143/2006
Reserved on: 21.09.2011
Date of Order:30.09.2011
SH. ANUJ SHARMA ...... Appellant
Through:
Versus
AHSANUL HAQ & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
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. The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 3rd
October, 2005 of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal ('the
Tribunal' for short) which came to be passed in the claim petition
No. 88 of 2004 filed by the appellant for seeking compensation on
account of injuries which were sustained by him in the road
accident which took place on 29th October, 2003 when he was
driving motor cycle No.DL-4SP-0077 and was hit by a TATA 407
bearing registration No.DL-1LB-7082 being driven by respondent
No.1, Ahsanul Haq, at very high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner. The said vehicle was stated to be owned by respondent
No. 2, Rahis Ahmed, and insured with respondent No. 3. the New
India Insurance Company Limited. The Tribunal awarded total
compensation of `14,36,880/- which was made up of
reimbursement of medical expenses `4,50,000/-, pain and
suffering `75,000/-, loss of salary/leave `2,02,400/-, loss of
earning capacity `5,19,480/-, permanent disability `1,00,000/-
special diet/conveyance `40,000/- and loss of marriage prospects
`50,000/-.
2. The impugned award is assailed by the appellant alleging
the compensation to be on lower side. The appellant has prayed
for enhancement of compensation on different counts. The main
grievance of the appellant is that though he suffered disability to
the extent of 60 per cent which lowered his earning capacity and
prospects of future earning as well as marriage, but the learned
Tribunal granted compensation on lower side under these heads.
3. There is no dispute that after the accident the appellant
was taken to hospital where he remained admitted from 25th
October 2003 to 8th December, 2003. He remained under
intensive medical treatment in the hospital and had to undergo
tracheotomy and was subjected to heavy medication involving
several intravenous procedures.
4. The learned Tribunal has discussed the injuries as well as
the medical treatment. The appellant had submitted medical bill
of `3,75,736/- of the hospital and also some bills of purchase of
medicines totalling about `5,500/-, besides two other bills of
physiotherapy of `9,000/- each. Though the total of all these bills
was about `4,27,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
`4,50,000/- towards the medical expenses which appears to be
the just and reasonable approach adopted by the Tribunal.
5. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the
appellant coupled with the medical treatment, as noted above,
the learned Tribunal was also right in arriving at a compensation
of `75,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
6. As per the evidence on record, the appellant was getting
gross annual salary of `3,29,280/- from his private job with a
company. After making reasonable deductions towards
transportation, lunch coupons, PF etc., the monthly income of the
appellant was assessed as `24,050/-. Since the appellant was in a
private job, the Tribunal has rightly taken this `24,050/- to be
actual monthly income of the appellant. Since he was on leave
for 8 months, the Tribunal awarded `2,02,400/- on account of loss
of salary for eight months. Though, the appellant could not
produce permanent disability certificate from any government
hospital, the Tribunal scanned through the evidence on record
and recorded a finding of fact that even if the disability was taken
to be 60%, the functional disability which would affect the earning
capacity of the appellant was not to be more than 10%. Keeping
in view the age of the appellant as 25 years, he rightly applied
the multiplier of 18 and thus arrived at a figure of `5,19,480/- as
the loss of earning capacity of the appellant due to functional
disability of 10%. This was arrived at after discussing the nature
of job of the appellant, his income, the permissible deductions
and also future prospects and by applying appropriate multiplier
of 18. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in this method
applied by the Tribunal in arriving at this figure of `5,19,480/-. In
addition to this, the learned Tribunal also awarded compensation
to the appellant towards discomforts of permanent disability as
`1,00,000/-. Compensation of `20,000/- each towards
conveyance and special diet also appears to be just and
reasonable in the given facts and circumstances of this case.
7. Though, there was no evidence on record regarding any
loss of sexual prowess of the appellant due to the injury sustained
by him, the Tribunal awarded him a sum of `50,000/- towards loss
of marriage prospects, if any. I do not see any infirmity or
perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal in assessing
the compensation on any of the counts and the total
compensation awarded to the appellant.
8. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned award.
The appeal merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
September 30, 2011
awanish
