U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Rajinder Kumar Luthra
2012 Latest Caselaw 759 Del

R-11/(P-III)
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +    MAC.APP.No.518/2006

%                                Date of decision: 3rd February, 2012

      U.P.S.R.T.C.                                 ..... Appellant
                           Through : Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv.

                      versus

      RAJINDER KUMAR LUTHRA                       ..... Respondent
                   Through : None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                          JUDGMENT (ORAL)

MAC.APP.No.518/2006 and CM No.8503/2006

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims

Tribunal whereby compensation of `2,63,492/- has been

awarded to the respondent. The appellant seeks reduction of

the award amount.

2. The accident dated 1st March, 2003 resulted in grievous

injuries to the respondent who was traveling in U.P. Roadways

bus No.UP-IS-L-7603 which hit against the stationary truck.

The respondent suffered fracture of both his legs. He

underwent two operations, one at Sparsh Fracture and

Physiotherapy Centre at Haridwar where he was hospitalized

for 13 days and the other at Muni Mayaram Jain Hospital in

Delhi where he was hospitalized for 4-5 days. A rod was

inserted in the left leg and screws were inserted in the right leg

of the respondent.

3. The respondent was a goldsmith earning `6,000/- per

month. The respondent proved his goldsmith licence, Ex.PW-

1/77. The disability of the respondent was assessed to be 20%

as per the disability certificate Ex.PW1/10. The respondent

deposed that he was not able to use his legs for pulling the

gold wire and was unable to pursue his profession as a

goldsmith.

4. The Claims Tribunal awarded `52,923/- towards

expenditure on medicines, `10,000/- towards travelling and

attendant expenses, `10,000/- towards special diet, `25,000/-

towards pain and agony, `19,247.4 towards loss of income

and `1,46,322/- towards loss of future income due to

permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal applied the minimum

wages and added 50% towards rise in cost of living index for

computation of loss of income due to permanent disability.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has made following

submissions at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The respondent has not impleaded the driver/owner and

insurance company of the stationary truck who was negligent

in parking on the wrong side.

(ii) The minimum wages at the relevant time was `3,207/-

whereas the Claims Tribunal has taken `3,695/- into

consideration.

(iii) The increase in minimum wages due to rise in the cost of

living index should not be taken into consideration.

6. The respondent was traveling in UP Roadways bus which

hit a stationary truck. However, the FIR was registered only

against the UP Roadways bus and, therefore, the non-

impleadment of the driver and the owner of the stationary

truck cannot be faulted with. Even otherwise, the liability of

the joint tort feasors is joint and several.

7. With respect to computation of compensation, this Court

find that the respondent proved by sufficient evidence that he

was a goldsmith. The respondent proved the goldsmith licence

as Ex.PW1/77. The respondent deposed on oath before the

Claims Tribunal that he was earning `6,000/- per month in his

profession. He further deposed that he is unable to carry his

profession any more due to the permanent disability in his

legs. In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal ought to

have taken the income of the respondent as `6,000/- per

month and there was no justification in taking the minimum

wages into consideration. Applying Section 167 of the Indian

Evidence Act, the award of the Claims Tribunal is upheld

though not for the reasons mentioned therein but for the

reasons stated above as there is sufficient evidence on record

to prove the occupation and income of the respondent. This

Court upholds the income of `5,543/- per month of the

respondent duly proved by him.

8. This Court also notices that the Claims Tribunal has not

awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities of life

and disfiguration. However, since there is no appearance on

behalf of the respondent and the respondent has not filed any

cross-objections, the enhancement of compensation is not

warranted.

9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 03, 2012 mk