Delhi High Court
Yogesh Sharma vs Shyam Singh & Ors. on 20 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.453/2011
YOGESH SHARMA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate.
Versus
SHYAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary,
Advocate for Respondent
No.3/Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
11.01.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum
of Rs.5,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Vide the instant appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation as noted above.
3. Mr. Navneet Goyal, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant argued that despite 40% permanent disability suffered by the
appellant, the learned Tribunal has not added any amount in his actual
income towards future prospects. The age of the injured on the date of the
accident was 32 years and he was a driver by profession.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has not
granted compensation towards, loss of disfigurement and for future medical
treatment.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that the
appellant received disability to the tune of 40% qua left lower limb,
however, the learned Tribunal has considered the said disability in relation
to whole body and accordingly granted sufficient amount in his favour.
6. As regards the future prospects is concerned, Mr. Chaudhary submits
that since the appellant could not prove that he was in permanent
employment, therefore, keeping in view the dictum of Sarla Verma &
Ors.Vs. DTC & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC121, which has been further affirmed in
the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered
in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013, the learned Tribunal has
not added any amount in his actual income towards future prospects.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. The issue of future prospects has been considered by this Court in the
case bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as 'ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors.', decided on 30.09.2013, while
relying upon the dictum 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.
9. I note, the appellant received serious injuries in the accident, operated
twice, remained hospitalized thrice and suffered 40% permanent disability.
He was working as a driver. Despite, while granting compensation, the
learned Tribunal has overlooked to grant compensation towards the non-
pecuniary damages.
10. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, his
age as 32 years and avocation of the appellant as driver, I add 50% in his
actual income towards future prospects. I also grant Rs.25,000/- for loss of
disfigurement and Rs.20,000/- for future medical treatment.
11. Accordingly, the compensation amount comes as under:
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. Compensation granted by ld. granted by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of income Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
2. For medical Rs. 64,000/- Rs. 64,000/-
expenses
3. Loss of future Rs. 3,84,000/- Rs. 5,76,000/-
income
4. Pain & Suffering Rs. 45,000/- Rs. 45,000/-
/loss of amenities
5. For special diet Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
6. For conveyance Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
7. Loss of -Nil- Rs. 25,000/-
disfigurement
8. For future medical -Nil- Rs. 20,000/-
treatment
TOTAL Rs.5,43,000/- Rs.7,80,000/-
Resultantly, the total compensation amount is assessed at
Rs.7,80,000/-.
12. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,37,000/- is enhanced. (Rs.7,80,000/-
- Rs.5,43,000/-).
13. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the
amount.
14. Accordingly, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the enhanced amount with upto date interest with the Registrar
General of this Court within a period of five weeks from today, failing
which, appellant/claimant shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12% per
annum on account of delayed payment.
15. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the same in
favour of the appellant/claimant on taking steps by him.
16. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed on the above terms.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 20, 2014
Sb/jg
