Delhi High Court
Mohd. Fakruddin Ansari vs Delhi Tranport Corporation & Anr on 10 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th October, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 201/2011
MOHD. FAKRUDDIN ANSARI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. I.A. Rahmani, Adv. with
Mr. Ekram Ali Ansari, Adv.
Appellant in person.
versus
DELHI TRANPORT CORPORATION & ANR. .... Respondents
Through Ms. Sushma Adv. for
Mrs. Bhakti Paserija Sethi, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of `3,97,276/-
awarded to him for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on 27.12.2004.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the
finding on negligence has attained finality between the parties.
3. The Appellant suffered multiple injuries on his left knee, leg, ankle and
left foot. On X-ray, he was found to have suffered multiple fractures in
the left leg. The Appellant remained under treatment in Jeewan Mala
Hospital and Rockland Hospital. He claimed to have spent a sum of
`3,85,515/- and proved bills Exs.PW-1/1 to PW-1/199 and treatment
papers Exs.PW-1/200 to PW-1/241. The Appellant was found to have
suffered post traumatic deformity in left leg with fixed ankle joint
resulting into 40% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left
lower limb.
4. In the Claim Petition, the Appellant claimed that he was earning `5,000/-
per month. But during his evidence, he tried to make out a case that he
was working in Saudi Arabia and was earning `15,000/- per month. In
the absence of any evidence with regard to Appellant's income, the
Claims Tribunal awarded the loss of income/loss of earning capacity on
the basis of the minimum wages of an unskilled worker. The
compensation of `3,97,276/- awarded for various heads is tabulated
hereunder:-
Sl.No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
1. Loss of Income `1,92,276/-
2. On account of Medical Expenses `1,40,000/-
3. On account of Pain and Suffering `50,000/-
4. Special Diet `5,000/-
5. On account of Conveyance Charges `10,000/-
Total ` 3,97,476/-
5. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-
(i) The Claims Tribunal erred in taking the deceased's income as per
the Minimum Wages of an unskilled worker. Even if, the
Appellant's income was not proved, the Claims Tribunal ought to
have been made assessment of the Appellant's income.
(ii) No compensation was awarded towards loss of amenities, loss of
income and Attendant charges.
INCOME
6. I have before me the Claim Petition preferred by the Appellant. In para 6
of the Claim Petition it was stated that the Appellant was a self employed
person and was earning `5,000/- per month. During evidence, the
Appellant tried to state that he was earning 1500/- Riyals per month. No
cogent evidence was produced in this regard. No evidence was produced
as to the duration of the contract if at all the Appellant was employed in
Saudi Arabia. No evidence was produced by the Appellant to prove his
profession or the work he was carrying in India or abroad. In the
circumstances, the Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding loss of
earning capacity on the basis of Minimum Wages of unskilled worker.
The disability certificate Ex.PW-1/A shows that the Appellant suffered
post traumatic deformity of left leg with fixed ankle joint resulting into
40% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb.
7. The Appellant has placed on record his latest photograph and is present in
the Court. His left leg is totally impaired. He cannot walk, except with
the help of a stick. During the course of arguments it was urged by the
learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant was working as a
welder. However, no evidence has been produced by the Appellant in
this regard. In any case, the Appellant is taken as a self employed person
and on account of disability of 40% in relation to his left lower limb, his
earning capacity has been substantially affected. The Appellant would be
entitled to addition of 30% in the assumed income on the basis of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559. I would take the loss of
earning capacity as 40%. The loss of future earning capacity comes to `
2,70,878/- (2874/- + 30% x 12 x 15 x 40%).
8. Keeping in view the fact that the Appellant suffered 40% permanent
physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb. He cannot run and
he would always have difficulty in walking, squatting and climbing, etc.
No compensation has been awarded to him towards loss of amenities and
expectations in life. Considering that this accident took place in the year
2004, I would make a provision of `50,000/- under this head.
9. The Appellant remained an indoor patient in Jeewan Mala Hospital and
Rockland Hospital for a period of about two months. Considering the
nature of injuries suffered by him, I am of the view that the Appellant
was unable to carry out any work at all for a period of at least one year.
He is, therefore, entitled to compensation of `34,728/- (2894/- x 12)
towards loss of income.
10. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558, a
Division Bench of this Court held that a victim cannot be deprived of
compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some family
members for the benefit of the tortfeasor. The Appellant needed
assistance of an Attendant to look after him in the hospitals for two
months and for at least two months thereafter. I would award him a sum
of `10,000/- (2500/- x 4) as Attendant charges for four months.
11. Although the Appellant claimed to have spent a sum of `3,85,515/- on his
treatment. He was granted compensation on the basis of the bills proved
on record by him. This finding of the Claims Tribunal cannot be faulted.
12. The compensation awarded is re-computed as under:-
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by Awarded
heads the Claims by this
No. Tribunal Court
1. Loss of Future Earning `1,92,276/- `2,70,878/-
2. Medical Expenses `1,40,000/- `1,40,000/-
3. Pain and Suffering `50,000/- `50,000/-
4. Special Diet `5,000/- `5,000/-
5. Conveyance Charges `10,000/- `10,000/-
6. Loss of Amenities and -- `50,000/-
Expectations in Life
7. Loss of Income -- `34,728/-
8. Attendant Charges -- `10,000/-
Total ` 3,92,276/- ` 5,70,156/-
13. The compensation stands enhanced from `3,92,276/- to `5,70,156/-.
14. The enhanced compensation of `1,77,880/- shall carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit.
15. Respondent No.2 National Insurance Company Limited is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with the Claims
Tribunal within six weeks.
16. Fifty percent of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit
for a period of two years. Rest shall be released on deposit.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
18. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 10, 2012
vk
