Delhi High Court
Angad Kumar vs Gopal Bahadur & Ors. on 13 May, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 13th May, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 40/2012
ANGAD KUMAR ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
versus
GOPAL BAHADUR & ORS. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.: (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
05.09.2011 whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.7,37,563/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition i.e. 01.05.2010 till realisation of the award
amount.
2. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of
compensation as noted above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in
the accident the appellant received injury with 80% disability and the
learned Tribunal has assessed the disability as 60%. Age of the injured on
the date of accident was 19 years, despite, the learned Tribunal has not
added any amount in his actual income towards future prospects.
4. To strengthen the argument learned counsel has relied upon the case
of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563
wherein it has been 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."
5. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was a young boy of
19 years of age on the date of accident. He was working as a labourer but
due to the said disability he suffered lot of pain and remained admitted in
hospital for 30 days, thus he lost the amenities of life. He has been
disfigured and marriage prospects have drastically reduced.
6. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and
Rs.80,000/- towards loss of disfigurement and marriage prospects, which is
on a very lower side.
7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance
Company submits that since the appellant failed to establish the permanent
employment, therefore, keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in
Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors., 2009 (6) SCC 121 which has further been
affirmed by the Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari &
Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.4646 of 2009 on
02.04.2013, learned Tribunal rightly not granted compensation on account of
future prospects.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submits that while
granting non-pecuniary damages learned Tribunal has taken into account the
complete facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that he was a
bachelor and survived by his parents. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has
sufficiently awarded compensation towards non-pecuniary loss.
9. The issue of future prospects has been dealt with by this Court in the
case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh &
Ors. while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh
(supra) wherein it has been held as under: -
"27. In view of above, this court is guided by the legal
principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to
assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumari, the Apex Court
affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh
Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in
respect of the persons falling under the category of self-
employment / fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid
down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no
contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the
cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh."
10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
records.
11. Admittedly the appellant was working as a helper and claimed to be
earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the appellant failed to prove the
avocation and salary, therefore, learned Tribunal assessed his monthly
income of Rs.3,953/- as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled worker.
12. Admittedly, the appellant suffered injury at the young age, which has
made him disabled and he is not able to do the labour work. In the present
era even a healthy person is unable get employment and the person, who is
with disability of 80% which pertains to his left lower limb has very minimal
chances of getting employment and that too on a very meagre salary. Due to
the injury, he has suffered loss and amenities of life. It is established that he
has become disabled, disfigured and thus marriage prospects has also
drastically reduced.
13. Keeping in view the facts of this case and in the interest of justice, I
award an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/-
for loss of amenities and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of disfigurement and
marriage prospects.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of
the appellant as 19 years at the time of his accident, I am of the considered
opinion that the appellant is entitled for 50% towards future prospects.
Accordingly, the compensation amount is assessed as under: -
Sl. Heads of Compensation Compensation
No. Compensation granted by ld. granted by this
Tribunal Court
1. On account of Rs.5,12,309/- Rs.7,68,528/-
permanent disability
2. Loss of income Rs.23,718/- Rs.23,718/-
3. On account of medical Rs.1,536/- Rs.1,536/-
expenses
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Loss of disfigurement Rs.80,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
& marriage prospect
Future Medical Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Expenses
Special diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Conveyance Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.7,37,563/- Rs.10,63,782/-
15. Accordingly, the total compensation amount is assessed at
Rs.10,63,782/-.
16. Resultantly, an amount of Rs.3,26,219/- (Rs.10,63,782 -
Rs.7,37,563)is enhanced.
17. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount.
18. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount
with Registrar General within six weeks from today, failing which the
appellant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on delayed period.
19. On deposit, the amount shall be released in favour of appellant on
taking necessary steps by him.
20. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 13, 2014
hs
