Delhi High Court
Parminder Singh vs Radhey Shyam & Ors. on 24 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 16th January, 2012
Pronounced on: 24th February, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.835/2011
PARMINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal with Ms.
Suman N. Rawat, Advocates
Versus
RADHEY SHYAM & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shubdha Khosla, Advocate
for the Respondent No.3
Insurance Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant Parminder Singh seeks enhancement of
compensation of ` 6,16,251/- awarded to the Appellant for
having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on
01.04.2007.
2. On 01.04.2007, the Appellant was proceeding in his car DL-5C-
1386 from Kala Amb towards Sadhoura (Haryana). A tanker
No.HR-38-C-7499 being driven by the First Respondent in a
rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction
and hit the Appellant's car. On account of forceful impact, the
car overturned and the tanker capsized. The Appellant suffered
fracture of right femur, fracture of super condylar right femur
and fracture of radius shaft right hand. As per the disability
certificate Ex.PW1/1, the Doctor opined the Appellant to have
suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% in relation to
his right lower limb.
3. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving
by the First Respondent. It was held that the Appellant was
carrying on business in the name and style of Bhatti Engineer
Works and had returned an income of `60,150/-, `84,800/- and
`99,750/- for the Assessment Year 2004-05, 2005-06 and
2006-07. The Claims Tribunal took the loss of earning
capacity on account of the injuries to be 25% and held that he
might not have attended to his work for five to six months.
The Claims Tribunal awarded the following compensation:
i. Compensation towards Pain and Sufferings `65,000/-
ii. Loss of Amenities, Enjoyment and
Compensation for Disfigurement `60,000/-
iii. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Injuries `3,99,000/-
iv. Loss of Earning of Petitioner for Six Months `49,875/-
v. Expenses towards Medical Bills `27,376/-
vi. Compensation towards Conveyance and `15,000/-
Special Diet(without Bills)
Total `6,16,251/-
4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:
i) The Claims Tribunal should have awarded loss on
income for 24 months instead of 06 months granted
by it;
ii) The Claims Tribunal should have granted a higher
multiplier than 16 considering the longevity of life;
iii) No compensation was awarded towards future
medical expenditure;
iv) The compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary
heads was very low;
v) The Claims Tribunal ought to have added future
prospects as the deceased was in his own business
and his income was consistently increasing.
5. The first four contentions recorded above are liable to rejected.
Although the Appellant claims that he should have been
awarded loss of income for 24 months, yet he did not produce
any evidence that he was confined to bed and was unable to
attend to work even for a period of six months. The Appellant
remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh from 01.04.2007 to
03.04.2007. He was then shifted to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi
where he remained admitted from 03.04.2007 to 10.05.2007.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered and in the absence
of any specific evidence as to the Appellant's confinement to
his home, the Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding six
months loss of income.
6. The Appellant was aged 32 years and the multiplier of 16 as
applied by the Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC
121. Therefore, the Appellant cannot claim any higher
multiplier.
7. The Appellant did not lead any evidence for any future medical
treatment for which he might incur some expenditure. In the
absence of any such evidence, the Claims Tribunal was
justified in not granting any compensation towards future
medical expenditure.
8. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, the Claims Tribunal
granted a sum of `65,000/- towards pain and suffering and
`60,000/- towards loss of amenities/disfigurement.
Considering that the Appellant suffered multiple fracture and
remained admitted in Hospital for a period of one month and
ten days and then had to take rest at his home to recover from
the injuries, the award of compensation as stated earlier cannot
be faulted with when separate compensation towards earning
capacity was granted.
9. As stated earlier, the Appellant's income was consistently
increasing from `60,150/- in the Assessment Year 2004-05 to
`99,750/- in the Assessment Year 2006-07. Thus, the
Appellant was filing Income Tax Return when he was a young
boy of 29 years and his income from his own business was
consistently increasing. In the circumstances, the Claims
Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the deceased's income
towards his future prospects, but deduction of Income Tax was
required to be made from the income while computing the loss
of earning capacity. As far as percentage of loss of earning
capacity is concerned, in the absence of any evidence, the
Claims Tribunal was justified in reducing the earning capacity
in respect of whole body to 25% functional disability when the
disability certificate indicated 50% disability towards his right
lower limb. The loss of earning capacity thus comes to `
5,98,500/- (99750 - Nil (Income Tax) + 50% X 16 X 25%).
10. The overall compensation is enhanced from `6,16,251/- to `
8,15,751/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. The
enhanced amount of compensation along with interest shall be
deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within 30
days.
11. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be held in the
Appellant's name in a Fixed Deposit in UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch for a period of one year.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 24, 2012
pst
