Delhi High Court
Lal Chand vs Prem And Ors on 15 May, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15th May, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.778/2012
LAL CHAND ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. N.K. Jha, Adv.
Versus
PREM AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. D.D. Singh and
Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advs. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 31.03.2012, whereby, Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.5,25,685/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.
2. Vide the present appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation noted above.
3. Mr. N.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the appellant is a self-employed person and was earning
Rs.7,000/- per month. Since he failed to prove his avocation and salary, Ld.
Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.5,278/- as per the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 applicable to the unskilled person at the prevalent time.
The appellant was 56 years of age on the date of accident and received 70%
permanent disability. Despite, the Ld. Tribunal, has not added any amount
in his actual income towards future prospects.
4. To strengthen his arguments on the above issue, ld. Counsel has relied
upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE
563, wherein 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. Mr. Jha further submits that despite the permanent disability received
by the appellant, Ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and
sufferings and Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and special diet on lower
side.
6. On the other hand, Mr. D.D. Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent / Insurance Company submits that the appellant failed to
prove his avocation and salary. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has rightly not
added any amount towards future prospects while relying upon the dictum of
Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121, which has been further
affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs.
Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65.
7. Mr. Singh further submits that keeping in view the facts of the case,
Ld. Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation towards non-
pecuniary damages.
8. He further submits that though the appellant produced a medical bill
of Rs.940/-, the Ld. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards the same.
9. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties.
10. The issue of future prospects has been dealt 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 while relying
upon the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (Supra).
11. Thus, keeping in view the age of the claimant as 56 years on the date
of accident, I award 15% towards future prospects.
12. As far as the issue of non-pecuniary damages are concerned,
admittedly, the appellant received 70% permanent disability and the same
has been considered by the Ld. Tribunal while calculating the compensation.
13. The appellant got crush injuries in his right foot. The amputation of
his right leg below knee had to be done by the Doctors in order to save his
life. He remained in hospital for 41 days. Therefore, I am of the considered
opinion that Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation towards non-pecuniary
damages on lower side.
14. Keeping the injuries into view and the treatment received by the
appellant, I award Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/-
towards conveyance and special diet.
15. As far as the issue of medical expenses are concerned, this issue has
been dealt by the Ld. Tribunal in Para 15 of the award, wherein it is recorded
that generally people during treatment do not maintain the bills etc. and they
are not aware of this benevolent legislation having provisions of
compensation. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ld. Tribunal
has rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.
16. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:-
Sr. Heads Calculation as per Calculation
MACT as per this
No.
Court
i. Treatment Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
ii. Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
iii. Conveyance and Rs.10,000 Rs.50,000/-
Special diet:
iv. Compensation towards Rs.31,668/- Rs.31,668/-
loss of income during
treatment period:
v. Compensation on Rs.3,99,017/- Rs.4,58,869/-
account of disability:
vi. Loss of enjoyment of Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
life
Total Rs.5,25,685/- Rs.7,00,537/-
Resultantly, the compensation is assessed at Rs.7,00,537/-
17. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,74,852/- is enhanced (Rs.7,00,537 -
Rs.5,25,685).
18. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
19. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with the Registrar General of this Court
within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, appellant shall be
entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
20. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the appellant on taking necessary steps by him.
21. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 15, 2014/jg/RS
