Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar Giri vs Veer Singh & Ors. on 23 April, 2015
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd April, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 644/2010
RAKESH KUMAR GIRI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
versus
VEER SINGH & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ankita Prabhakar, Adv. for R-1
& R-2.
Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `13,86,000/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a
motor vehicular accident which occurred on 16.06.2008. The accident
ultimately resulted in amputation of Appellant's left arm below elbow.
The Appellant also suffered multiple fractures on his left leg.
2. In the absence of any appeal by the owner, driver and the Insurance
Company, the finding on negligence has attained finality.
3. The compensation awarded as tabulated in para 21 of the impugned
award is extracted hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Medicines and Medical Treatment 92,000/-
2. Cost of Physiotherapy 5,000/-
3. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability 11,86,000/-
4. Loss of Amenities of Life 30,000/-
5. Pain and Suffering 50,000/-
6. Conveyance & Special Diet 23,000/-
Total Rs.13,86,000/-
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant
suffered 80% disability in respect of his left arm. However, his
functional disability was considered as 60% only. It ought to have
been considered at least 80%.
5. It is also contended that the Appellant was working as an Electrical
Technician and Hydrolic Operator and there was evidence with regard
to his good future prospects, still no addition towards future prospects
was awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
6. It is urged that the Appellant had proved bills for `65,700/- Ex.PW-
1/25 to Ex.PW-1/34 still the Claims Tribunal declined to grant
compensation as per the receipts and granted a consolidated sum of
`5,000/- only towards the same.
7. On the other hand, learned counsels for Respondents no.1 and 2 and
Respondent no.3 support the impugned judgment and state that the
compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
8. It is well settled that in order to grant loss of future earning capacity,
the Claims Tribunal and the Court are required to go into the
functional disability on account of permanent disability suffered by
any victim of a motor vehicular accident. In the instant case, the
Appellant was working as an Electrical Technician and Hydrolic
Operator. Appellant's employer came forward to depose that the
Appellant was not attending to the work since the date of his accident.
At the same time, with his qualification the Appellant would be able to
earn at least to the extent of 40% of his earning capacity as an able-
bodied man. In view of this, the Claims Tribunal was justified in
awarding 60% loss of earning capacity.
9. A perusal of the testimony of PW-2 Praveen Kumar reveals that the
Appellant had joined M/s. Hari Udyog India in October, 2007 on a
salary of `7,500/- per month and his salary at the time of the accident
had increased to `9150/- per month. He also stated that if he would
have continued to work in the firm, his salary would have doubled.
Thus, it was established that the Appellant was in settled employment
having good future prospects. Therefore, addition towards future
prospects to the extent of 50% ought to have made (Appellant being
24 years). Consequently, the loss of earning capacity would come to
`17,78,760/-(` 9,150/- x 12 + 50% x 18 x 60/100).
10. As far as amount of `65,700/- claimed to be spent on physiotherapy, I
may say that no prescription by any orthopedic surgeon was placed on
record to prove the period for which physiotherapy was required. The
Physiotherapist, who had issued the bills and who carried out the
physiotherapy was also not produced. The Claims Tribunal, therefore,
was justified in not taking into account the bills Ex.PW1/25 to
Ex.PW1/34.
11. At the same time, it goes without saying that in case of multiple
injuries on left leg and amputation of left arm below elbow some
physiotherapy must have been received. The compensation of `5,000/-
as awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards the same seems to be on
the lower side. I tend to increase the same to `10,000/- The overall
compensation is re-computed as under:-
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by the Awarded by
heads Claims Tribunal this Court
No.
1. Medicines and Medical 92,000/- 92,000/-
Treatment
2. Cost of Physiotherapy 5,000/- 10,000/-
3. Loss of Earning Capacity due 11,86,000/- 17,78,760/-
to Disability
4. Loss of Amenities of Life 30,000/- 30,000/-
5. Pain and Suffering 50,000/- 50,000/-
6. Conveyance & Special Diet 23,000/- 23,000/-
Total Rs.13,86,000/- Rs.19,83,760/-
12. The overall compensation is thus enhanced by `5,97,760/- which shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
13. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2015
vk
