Delhi High Court
Tinku Sharma vs Surender Pal Singh & Ors on 19 September, 2014
$~A-5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19.09.2014
+ MAC.APP. 740/2011
TINKU SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate.
versus
SURENDER PAL SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 13.04.2011 by the
claimants.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant on 15.10.2005 was going on his
foot at divider road, Sector-15/16, Rohini Delhi and he was hit by a bus. The
bus was driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed in a rash and negligent
manner.
3. The appellant was at the relevant time 19 years old and a student of
B.Com.
4. Based on the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal awarded the
following compensation:-
"a) Medical expenses................................Rs.97,184/-
b) Pain and sufferings etc..........................Rs.1,00,000/-
c) Special diet and conveyance charges.......Rs.20,000/-
d) loss of marriage prospectus.....................Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.2,42,184/-
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the Award and
states that the compensation awarded is inadequate as no amount has been
awarded whatsoever on account of loss of financial earnings of the appellant
due to the permanent disability suffered by the appellant. He submits that as
per the Award the appellant had suffered 15% permanent disability being a
case of post Traumatic Disfigurement of the right leg and ankle due to the
accident and hence, the Tribunal could safely concluded that the loss of
earning capacity was at least 15% and compensation based on minimum
wages would at least have been awarded to the appellant.
6. A perusal of the Award shows that the Tribunal noted that the
disability is to the extent of 15% in relation to disfigurement of right leg and
ankle due to the accident but concluded that the earning capacity of the
claimant cannot be said to have been reduced. The Tribunal also noted that
there is nothing on record to show that the disability had any effect on his
earning capacity and that the appellant on the relevant date was not earning
anything but was simply a student. Based on the same, the Tribunal awarded
no amount for functional disability.
7. It may be noted that this court on 17.09.2013 had referred the
appellant to the Disability Board of Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital,
Rohini, Delhi. The said hospital has filed a disability certificate dated
21.03.2013. As per the said disability certificate the appellant has 22%
permanent disability in relation to right lower limb. The hospital has also
diagnosed his condition as stiffness of right ankle and foot. The hospital also
appears to have ticked the first column at serial number 2 which indicates
low vision.
8. It may also be noted that PW-2 the appellant in his affidavit by way of
evidence has pointed out that the appellant was admitted in hospital from
15.10.2005 to 31.10.2005. During the period of hospitalisation his right leg
was operated and steel implant was inserted. Skin grafting was also done as
the skin of right leg had completely peeled off. He also remained
hospitalised thereafter on from 17.11.2005 to 21.11.2005.
9. A reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., 2014 ACJ 1441. That case was
pertaining to a student studying in 11th class aged 16 years. The evidence on
record showed that the claimant there was a brilliant student and had an
excellent career ahead. The High Court in that case had taken the income of
the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month. The Supreme Court in the light of
principles laid down in the previous judgments and keeping in mind her past
result, took Rs.10,000/- as her monthly notional income for computation of
just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of income. To his
amount future prospects were added of 50%. The functional disability was
assessed at 70%. The Supreme Court hence taking the multiplier of 18 and
taking functional disability of 70% awarded compensation under the said
head of loss of income of Rs.22,68,000/- and a total compensation of
Rs.30,93,000/- was awarded to the claimants in that case.
10. Keeping in view the above judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr., (supra) in my opinion, the Tribunal in
the present case erred in awarding no amount whatsoever for compensation
under the head of loss of income.
11. As per the latest disability certificate the appellant has suffered 22%
permanent disability in relation to right lower limb. Some amount of guess
work would be required to assess the functional disability. I accordingly
assess the functional disability at 15% for the whole body keeping into
account the background facts and circumstance of the present case.
12. For the purpose of computing loss of income, minimum wages as
applicable to a person passed out from a school would be appropriate
income to take. Taking minimum wages of matriculate as Rs.3719/- loss of
income of the appellant works out to Rs.1,80,743/-. (Rs.3719/- + 50% x 12 x
18 x 15/100)
13. Total compensation hence works out as follows:-
"a) Medical expenses..................................Rs.97,184/-
b) Pain and sufferings etc..........................Rs.1,00,000/-
c) Special diet and conveyance charges.......Rs.20,000/-
d) loss of marriage prospectus.....................Rs.25,000/-
e)loss of income...................................... Rs.1,80,743/-
Total Rs.4,22,927/-
14. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company may deposit the additional
compensation amount within four weeks with accumulated interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 10.12.2007
till compensation is deposited in court. The additional amount be deposited
within four weeks before the Registrar General of this Court. On receipt of
the said amount 50% can be released to the appellant. Balance 50% be kept
in a fixed deposit for the period of 5 years. The periodical interest from the
fixed deposit may be released to the appellant. On expiry, the fixed deposit
amount be released to the appellant.
15. The appeal stands disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2014
rb
