Delhi High Court
Puran Lal vs Praveen Kansal & Ors on 19 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th January, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 101/2010
PURAN LAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. with
Mr. Vivekanand Rana, Adv.
versus
PRAVEEN KANSAL & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. De, Adv. with
Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.3315/2010 (O.41 Rule 27 CPC) in MAC.APP. 101/2010
1. The Appellant has filed this application for additional evidence.
He wants to prove on record the Matriculation certificate/
Intermediate Certificate issued by the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P. and a Diploma in Electronics with
Specialization in Communication System. The same is not
disputed and is taken on record.
2. The application is allowed.
MAC.APP. 101/2010
3. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of
`2,91,396/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(the Tribunal) by the impugned judgment in respect of the
injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on
09.07.2005.
4. The Appellant suffered 41% permanent disability in relation to
his left upper limb. The overall assessment of the permanent
disability with respect to the whole body was opined by PW-3
Dr. Harish Mansukhani as 16% to 17%. The Tribunal awarded
the overall compensation of `2,91,396/- under various heads
which are extracted hereunder:-
1. Compensation for Medical Expenses ` 37,501/-
2. Compensation for Conveyance & Special ` 5,000/-
Diet
3. Compensation for Loss of Income ` 9,135/-
4. Compensation for Loss of Earning ` 1,39,760/-
Capacity
5. Compensation for Pain and Suffering ` 50,000/-
6. Compensation for Loss of Amenities of ` 50,000/-
Life
TOTAL ` 2,91,396/-
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that he (the
Appellant) was an Intermediate having a technical qualification
i.e. Diploma in Electronics with Specialization in
Communication System. Loss of his earning capacity was
assessed on the basis that he was unskilled worker.
6. Learned counsel urges that the diploma issued by the Board of
Technical Education, U.P., though the same could not be filed
before the Tribunal, clearly shows that the Appellant ought to
have been treated as a skilled worker. It is contended that the
Tribunal erred in taking the overall disability in respect of the
whole body as 17%.
7. Per contra, the counsel for the Insurance Company urges that no
evidence was produced on record to show that the permanent
disability suffered by the Appellant affected the loss of his
earning capacity.
8. It is well settled that to claim compensation for a permanent
disability, a claimant is required to prove that the permanent
disability affected his functional capacity to earn. In other
words, the earning capacity must be proved to have been
affected. (Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC
343).
9. I have been taken through the Affidavit Ex.PW-1/1 filed by the
Appellant. There was not even a whisper that because of the
permanent disability, he suffered loss of earning capacity for his
whole life. On the other hand, the record points to the contrary.
The accident took place on 09.07.2005. In the next year the
Appellant returned the income of `95,000/-, for the year 2007-
08, it increased to ` 97,155/- and for the year 2008-2009, it
further increased to `1,38,615/-. It is, therefore, apparent that
the earning capacity was not affected on account of the
permanent disability suffered by the Appellant. The
compensation of ` 1,39,760/- was really towards the loss of
amenities in life.
10. In the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment; the same is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 19, 2012
vk
