Delhi High Court
Santosh @ Santosh Sav vs Gopal Singh & Ors. on 4 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:04th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 957/2013
SANTOSH @ SANTOSH SAV ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava, Adv.
Versus
GOPAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga and
Ms. Shruti Shukla, Advs. for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 16729/2013(Delay)
In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 293
days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
+ MAC. APP. 957/2013
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award
dated 04.09.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation
as under:
"1. Loss of Medical Expenses : NIL
2. For loss of earning on account
of disability : Rs. 4,56,019/-
3. Pain and Suffering : Rs. 60,000/-
4. Conveyance & Special Diet : Rs. 40,000/-
5. Attendant Charges : Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss of Amenities : Rs. 40,000/-
Total : Rs. 6,06,019/-
(Rs. Six lacs six thousand and nineteen only.) "
The learned Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the
injured/appellant was a rickshaw puller. On the date of accident he was 23
years old. In the accident in question, he received 40% permanent disability
in relation to both the lower limbs. However, the learned Tribunal has
assessed 40% functional disability and accordingly granted compensation.
He submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to add any amount in his
income towards future prospects.
3. To support his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon case of
Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563 wherein
the Full Bench of the Apex Court has held as under:-
"11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra)
actually intended to follow the principle in the case of
salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra)
and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and
persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase
in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will
also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the
case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in
case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there
must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the
deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to
say that the actual income should be income after
paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case
the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated
that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be
no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of
those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is
normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view
that it will only be just and equitable to provide an
addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between
the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the
compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable.
There shall normally be no addition thereafter."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned
Tribunal failed to grant compensation towards loss of disfigurement and
loss of marriage prospects. He submitted that the injured became disabled
at a very young age and suffered disability in both lower limbs due to which
the marriage prospects have been ceased, therefore, just and fair
compensation may be granted in his favour.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent/Insurance Company submits that the appellant received 40%
permanent disability in his both lower limbs and learned Tribunal has
considered 40% functional disability qua the whole body. He was a
rickshaw puller and could not prove his employment, therefore, the learned
Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs. 5,278/- as his monthly income applicable
to an unskilled worker at the relevant time as per the Minimum Wages Act,
1948. Hence, the learned Tribunal has not added any amount in his actual
income towards future prospects.
6. To support his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the case
of Sarla Verma & Ors.Vs. DTC & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC121, which has been
further affirmed by Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.
delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company further
submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- each for
conveyance and special diet and loss of amenities, Rs. 60,000/- for pain and
suffering and Rs. 10,000/- for attendant charges. He submitted that the
learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, therefore, no interference
is required from this Court.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties.
9. As far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, while relying
upon the case of Rajesh & Ors. (supra), this issue has been considered by
this Court in the case bearing MACA No.846/2011 titled as ICICI
Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., decided on
30.09.2013.
10. Therefore, keeping in view the settled position of law and that the age
of the injured as 23 years on the date of accident and 40% of permanent
disability in relation to both the lower limbs, I add 50% in his actual income
towards the future prospects.
11. Admittedly, age of the Age of the appellant on the date of accident,
i.e., 04.07.2010 was 23 years. He was a rickshaw puller and a bachelor at
that time. However, no amount is granted by the learned Tribunal for loss of
disfigurement and marriage prospects.
12. Keeping in view the age of the appellant and his disability, I grant
Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of disfigurement and marriage prospects.
13. In view of the above, the compensation amount comes as under:
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. Compensation granted by ld. granted by
Tribunal this Court
1. Loss of Medical NIL NIL
Expenses
2. For loss of earning on Rs.4,56,019/- Rs.6,84,028.8
account of disability
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 60,000/-
4. Conveyance & Special Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
Diet
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
7. Loss of disfigurement NIL Rs.50,000/-
8. Loss of marriage NIL Rs.50,000/-
prospects
TOTAL Rs.6,06,019/- Rs.9,34,028.8
Accordingly, the compensation is assessed as Rs.9,34,028.8/-.
14. Resultantly, an amount of Rs. 3,28,009.8 is enhanced (Rs.9,34,028.8
- Rs.6,06,019/-). The same is rounded off to Rs.3,28,010/-.
15. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
16. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with upto date interest accrued thereon with the
Registrar General of this Court within a period of six weeks from today,
failing which, appellant/claimant shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12%
per annum on account of delayed payment.
17. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the appellant/claimant.
18. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 04, 2014
Cl/jg
