Delhi High Court
Chaturbhuj vs Kailash & Ors. on 4 April, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.A. 325/2012
% Judgment reserved on: 19th March, 2013
Judgment delivered on: 4th April, 2013
CHATURBHUJ ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vijay Wadhwa, Adv.
versus
KAILASH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kamal Sharma, Adv. for
R2.
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 16.12.2011 whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation in
favour of the appellant and against the respondents, i.e., owner /
insurance company.
2. Vide the instant appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement on the
ground that he was confined to hospital for a period of 29 days as he
was admitted in the Safdarjung Hospital on 24.12.2009 and discharged
on 21.01.2010 and thereafter, he followed OPD as per the advice of the
Doctor and due to which he had suffered loss of income for the said
period. However, ld. Tribunal has not granted even a single penny
towards compensation for loss of income to the appellant.
3. On perusal of impugned judgment and trial court record, it is
revealed that ld. Tribunal has framed a issue "whether appellant /
petitioner was entitled to claim compensation, if so, by whom the same
shall be payable".
4. On this issue, it is recorded by the ld. Tribunal that nothing was
brought on record by the appellant / claimant to prove his claim that he
is self-employed and was making envelopes and selling the same to
shopkeepers. He also failed to prove on record that from the said
working he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, ld. Tribunal
has considered the income of the appellant for a sum of Rs.3,953/- per
month minimum wages applicable at the time of the accident.
5. The appellant had suffered 46% permanent physical disability in
relation to his left lower limb as per the Certificate Ex.PW2/A and the
condition of the appellant was non-progressive, i.e., not likely to be
improved.
6. As rightly pointed out by the ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of
the respondents that as per the record appellant was 75 years of
age. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the appellant / claimant, his
disability and minimum wages prescribed at the time of accident, ld.
Tribunal held him entitled to the loss of income to the extent of
Rs.1,000/- per month.
7. By taking into consideration, the age of the appellant, multiplier
of 5 has been applied by the ld. Tribunal and loss of earning capacity
has been assessed as Rs.60,000/-.
8. As the appellant has received continuous treatment extending
over a period of nearly 1 year, therefore, ld. Tribunal has considered
the pain and sufferings undergone by the appellant during this period
and granted him a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation.
9. Age of the appellant was 75years and no proof has been placed
on record regarding his earning. It is rightly pointed out by the
counsels for the respondents that at the age of 75 years no multiplier
should have been applied, however, ld. Tribunal has granted
compensation on a higher side. Moreover, the appellant proved the
medical bills for Rs.43,000/-, but, ld. Tribunal has granted
compensation of Rs.45,000/- to this effect.
10. So far as the compensation for attendant is concerned, the
appellant has failed to produce proof of any payment made to any one
or has examined any witness, who has received the amount for
payment of the attendant.
11. I note, compensation has been granted to him for conveyance
engaged by the appellant during the period of treatment.
12. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the instant
appeal.
13. Consequently, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
APRIL 04, 2013/Jg
