Delhi High Court
A.C. Roy vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors on 31 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 9th October, 2012
Pronounced on: 31st October, 2012
+ MAC APP.527/2004
A.C. ROY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate
Versus
SANJAY KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.L. Gupta with Mr. Ram Ashray,
Advocates for the Respondent No.2
Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. Appellant A.C. Roy who was working as a craftsman in the Indian Army
seeks enhancement of compensation of `2,99,320/- awarded to him by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claims Tribunal) who suffered
injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.09.1989.
2. The Appellant suffered a compound fracture on his right foot. He proved
a certificate Ex.PW1/A whereby he was placed in the lower medical
category. Further, the Appellant was placed in low middle category
'BEE' permanently w.e.f. 11.01.1995 as per the certificate Ex.PW1/D.
He was discharged after 16 years of service instead of 22 years. The
Claims Tribunal thus awarded him compensation on account of the
difference in the pension he received and the amount of salary which
would have been admissible to him had he continued in service for
another six years. The relevant para of the impugned judgment is
extracted hereunder:
"14. At the time of his discharge he was drawing a salary of
`5329/- and other allowances as is evident from Ex.PW2/A. It
has also come on record that he has been drawing a pension of
`1520/- per month. Since he has not completed the remaining
service of six years and if he has to be paid compensation, then
this amount has to be deducted. Thus, his total per month
salary comes to `3809/-(5329-1520), say, 3810/- per month i.e.
`45,720/- per annum. If this amount is multiplied by 6, the
same comes to `2,74,320/- (45,720/- x 6).
15. As far as compensation towards mental pain and agony
is concerned, it has come on record that he received compound
fractures on his right foot and remained admitted in army base
hospital from 23.9.1989 to 9.3.1990, and further lowered in
med. Category and has been debarred from promotion. He has
not only suffered in terms of financial benefits but has also
suffered loss of status as he was retired six years earlier of his
retirement. It means he has suffered a great mental pain and
agony. Thus, he is awarded an amount of `25,000/- towards
mental pain and agony. Thus, in all petitioner is awarded an
amount of `2,99,320/- (2,74,320/- + 25,000/-)."
3. The Appellant's grievance is that had he continued in service for 22
years, he would have been entitled to a higher pension @ `3,349/- per
month in the year 2007 whereas on the date of the discharge on
31.03.2001, he was getting a basic pay of `1520/- per month. The
Appellant also examined AW1 Naik Rajesh Kumar to prove the
certificate Ex.AW1/1. The witness was not cross-examined as none
appeared on behalf of the Respondents including the Respondent No.2
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
4. Admittedly, some of the component in the pension of `3,349/- was on
account of increase in the Dearness Allowance w.e.f. 31.03.2001, that is,
the date of discharge and some amount was on account of increments for
six years. It was stated that the pension of `1,520/- had increased to
`2,605/- on the date the certificate was issued. Thus, there would be a
difference of `800/- per month in the pension on account of increments.
The Appellant would be entitled to be compensated for this difference,
that is, `800/- per month. On the date of his projected retirement in the
year 2007, the Appellant's age might have been 40 years and 09 months.
Thus, the appropriate multiplier to award the compensation on account of
difference in pension would be 14. The Appellant is entitled to difference
in pension of `1,34,400/- (`800/- x 12 x 14).
5. It is urged that the Appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent
of 5% in relation to lower limb, as per Disability Certificate. He should
have been awarded some compensation towards loss of earning capacity.
As stated above, full compensation has already been awarded to the
Appellant on account of loss of salary and reduction in pension. The
Appellant has not brought on record as to how the fracture of both bones
of right leg with 10% loss of knee and Ankle ROM (Restriction of
Movement) would affect his earning capacity after his retirement.
Moreover, the Appellant would have been free to work for six years and
earn something although he has already been granted compensation for
full loss of salary for six years by the Claims Tribunal.
6. Similarly, the Appellant has not led any evidence as to any inconvenience
suffered by him on account of the disability. Thus, the Appellant would
not be entitled to any compensation on account of loss of amenities in
life.
7. The Appellant would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the
enhanced amount of `1,34,400/- w.e.f. 2007 which would have been the
date of his discharge upto the date of the decision of this Appeal.
8. The enhanced amount along with interest shall be deposited by the
Respondent No.2 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. with the Claims
Tribunal within six weeks.
9. Fifty percent of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit
for a period of three years; rest shall be released on deposit.
10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
11. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 31, 2012
pst
