Delhi High Court
Harish vs Mangal Singh & Ors. on 11 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 21st March, 2012
Pronounced on: 11th May, 2012
+ MAC APP. 72/2011
HARISH .... Appellant
Through: Mr. B.K. Roy, Adv.
versus
MANGAL SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.C. Mahajan, Adv. for
R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of
`2,81,738/- awarded to him for having suffered injuries in a
motor accident which occurred on 30.05.2007.
2. In the absence of any Cross Appeal, the finding on negligence
has become final between the parties.
3. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to
G.T.B. Hospital. He remained admitted from 30.05.2007 to
04.06.2007. Since the Appellant suffered head injuries and
injury to his left eye, he was admitted in Sant Parmanand
Hospital and remained there from 12.06.2007 to 23.06.2007.
The Appellant was issued a Disability Certificate by the Board
of Doctors, G.T.B.Hospital disclosing 30% permanent vision
impairment in relation to his left eye with post traumatic optic
atrophy with macular scar.
4. On the date of the accident, the Appellant was a student of 11 th
standard. The Claims Tribunal took the notional income of the
Appellant to be `15,000/- per annum and awarded the following
compensation:-
Sl.No. Compensation under various Awarded by
heads the Claims
Tribunal
1. Towards Loss of Income for three ` 10,989/-
months for receiving treatment
2. The Petitioner also received `50,000/-
grievous injuries on both bones of
his right leg therefore expenses
towards mental pain and agony
3. Loss of Future Income ` 1,05,494.4/-
4. Towards Conveyance and Better ` 25,000/-
Diet
5. Towards Medical Bills ` 90,255/-
Total ` 2,81,738.4/-
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Claims Tribunal gravely erred in awarding compensation on the
basis of the notional income of `15,000/- per annum. At least
the minimum wages of a Matriculate ought to have been taken
into consideration for awarding the compensation. It is
contented that no compensation has been awarded for loss of
amenities and inconvenience in life.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
supports the quantum of compensation on the ground that
partial loss of vision in respect of one of the eye would be
treated as 10% loss of earning capacity as per Schedule I (Part-
II) Item 26-A of the Workmen Compensation Act.
7. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343, the
Supreme Court brought out the difference between permanent
disability and functional disability resulting into loss of earning
capacity.
8. The Appellant was a student of 11th standard, aged 19 years.
Loss of vision to the extent of 30% would always be a handicap
not only during his studies but in his career throughout. In the
circumstances, I would not accept the loss of earning capacity
as given in the First Schedule to the Workmen Compensation
Act and would hold that he would be entitled to compensation
to the extent of 30% loss of his earning capacity which on the
basis of the minimum wages of a Matriculate would come to
`2,53,886/- (3918/- x 12 x 18 x 30%).
9. In addition, the Appellant would further be entitled to a sum of
`11,754/- (3918/- x 3) on the basis of the minimum wages of a
Matriculate towards the loss of income for three months during
which he received treatment and a sum of `25,000/- towards
Loss of Amenities in Life and Inconvenience.
10. The overall compensation is recomputed as under:-
Compensation under Awarded by Awarded
Sl. various heads the Claims by this
No. Tribunal Court
1. Towards Loss of Income ` 10,989/- ` 11,754/-
for three months for
receiving treatment
2. The Petitioner also `50,000/- `50,000/-
received grievous injuries
on both bones of his right
leg therefore expenses
towards mental pain and
agony
3. Loss of Earning Capacity ` 1,05,494.4/- ` 2,53,886/-
4. Towards Conveyance and ` 25,000/- ` 25,000/-
Special Diet
5. Towards Medical Bills ` 90,255/- ` 90,255/-
6. Loss of Amenities in Life -- ` 25,000/-
and Inconvenience
Total ` 2,81,738.4/- ` 4,55,895/-
11. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from `2,81,738/- to
`4,55,895/-.
12. The enhanced amount of `1,74,157/- shall carry interest @
7.5% from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of
payment.
13. Respondent No.4 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with upto date
interest with the Registrar General of this Court within six
weeks in the name of the Appellant which shall be released/held
in fixed deposit as per the Claims Tribunal order.
14. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 11, 2012
vk
