Delhi High Court
Dev Dutt Sharma vs Bhim Singh & Anr. on 19 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:19th July, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.630/2011
DEV DUTT SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.N.L. Gupta, Advocate
Versus
BHIM SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha,
Advocate for the Respondent 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,30,000/-
awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries
in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 05.01.2004.
2. The finding on negligence reached by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) is not challenged by any
of the Respondents and has thus attained finality.
3. The Appellant suffered compound fracture of left leg. He was
admitted to Safdarjung Hospital and was later on shifted to ESI
Hospital, Basai Darapur on 09.01.2004. The Appellant received
a prolonged treatment and had to take leave from 05.01.2004 to
06.05.2006. He was granted a disability certificate dated
18.04.2007 by Medical Board of Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Hospital. He was declared to have suffered 7.5% permanent
physical disability in relation to his left lower limb on account
of fracture of tibial plateau with restriction of movement. The
Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,30,000/- which
is tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by
various heads the Claims
No. Tribunal
1. Pain and Suffering `60,000/-
2. Loss of Amenities ` 30,000/-
3. Special Diet ` 20,000/-
4. Conveyance ` 20,000/-
Total ` 1,30,000/-
4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:
(i) The Appellant had to take leave for the period
05.01.2004 to 06.05.2006 i.e. for a period of 28
months. Since he was an ESI beneficiary, he was
granted a sum of `38,140/- on account of leave by the
ESI. The Appellant's salary, it is argued was `3047/-
per month. He was entitled to the difference between
his salary and the benefit granted by the ESI.
(ii) Although, the Appellant suffered permanent disability
to the extent of 7.5% in respect of left lower limb, no
compensation was granted towards loss of earning
capacity.
5. The Appeal must succeed on the first ground.
6. The Appellant suffered actual loss of salary for 28 months.
Even if he would have been paid salary by the employer and
had suffered loss of leave, he would have been entitled to full
compensation. Since a sum of `38,140/- was paid to him by
ESI, considering the injury was to an employee, the Appellant
was entitled to a compensation of `47,176/- (`3047 x 28=
85316/- - 38140/-).
7. As far as grant of compensation towards loss of future earning
capacity is concerned, it is not the Appellant's case that he
suffered any loss in future earning capacity. It is not the
Appellant's case that he lost his job or his job was otherwise
affected. The case is covered by the report of the Supreme
Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343
and the Appellant was not entitled to any compensation towards
loss of earning capacity. Of course, he was entitled to
compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities,
special diet and conveyance for which he has been adequately
compensated.
8. In view of the above, there is an enhancement in the award by
`47,176/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum for a
period of four years till the date of the award in view of the
observations made in para 23 of the impugned judgment. The
Appellant would further be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of the award till the amount is paid to the
Appellant.
9. The Respondent No.2 National Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation of `47,176/- along with
interest with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks, which shall
be released to the Appellant immediately on deposit.
10. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 19, 2012
pst
