Delhi High Court
Bhagwan Singh vs Dtc & Ors on 7 April, 2016
$~R-47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 441/2007 & CMNo. 11860/2007
BHAGWAN SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie & Mr. Manish
Mannie, Advs.
versus
DTC & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar for Ms. Aarti
Mahajan Shedha, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant, then aged 50 years, was employed as security guard in
Priyadarshni Apartment at a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. On 15.10.2004,
he suffered injuries due to rash driving of bus bearing registration No. DL
1PB 6249 (the offending vehicle). He filed an accident claim case under
Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), which was
registered as (Suit No. 33/2005) impleading Delhi Transport Corporation
(DTC), the owner of the offending vehicle, and National Insurance
Company Ltd. (insurer) as respondents.
2. After inquiry, the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) by
judgment dated 13.03.2007 awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.
41,500/-, with interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
Since the insurer had admitted the liability to indemnify under the insurance
policy taken out by DTC (the owner of the offending vehicle), it was asked
to satisfy the award.
3. The award made by the tribunal includes Rs. 3,500/- towards medical
expenses, Rs. 2,000/- each towards conveyance and special diet, Rs. 9,000/-
towards loss of income and Rs. 25,000 towards pain & suffering. It may be
added here that in the course of inquiry, the claimant had admitted that after
the accident, he had secured another employment as security guard in
Government school in Kalyanpuri though at a salary of Rs. 1,000/- per
month. The tribunal noted that no permanent disability had been proved and
thus, no award was made towards loss of future income.
4. By appeal at hand, the appellant seeks enhancement claiming that he
has been rendered permanently disabled. He submitted a disability
certificate dated 14.12.2006 (Ex. AW1/1). On his request under Order 41
Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) he was allowed to
adduce additional evidence. He examined Dr. Harish (AW-1), one of the
members of the board of doctors which had issued the disability certificate.
According to this evidence, the appellant suffers permanent disability on
account of delayed union of the facture of the right upper limb with stiff
shoulder, the disability having been assessed to the extent of 44% in relation
to the said upper limb.
5. By the appeal at hand, the appellant presses only for loss of future
income on account of disability and loss of amenities to be compensated.
6. Having regard to the nature of avocation in which the appellant had
been engaged and also bearing in mind that he was able to secure another
employment after the injuries were suffered, the functional disability being
not equivalent to the disability in relation to the specific limb, the future loss
of income has to be computed accordingly. In the assessment of this Court,
the case of disability suffered here being essentially on account of restricted
movement of the shoulder, the functional disability may be treated to the
extent of 25% in relation to the whole body.
7. Since the net loss of income was Rs. 2,000/-, the future loss of
earnings would be to the extent of (2,000 x 20 ÷ 100) Rs. 400/- per month.
Since the claimant was 50 years at the relevant point of time, the loss of
future income may be calculated on the multiplier of 13. Thus, the
compensation under the said head is calculated as (400 x 12 x 13) Rs.
62,400/-.
8. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered, the damages for loss
of amenities to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- are added. Thus, the total
compensation payable in the case liable to be enhanced by (62,400 + 2,000)
Rs. 66,400/- rounded off to ₹67,000/-. Needless to add, the enhanced
portion of compensation would also carry interest at the rate levied by the
tribunal. The award is modified as above.
9. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced portion of
the award with the tribunal within 30 days of today whereupon it shall be
released to the appellant/claimant by deposit in his name in a nationalized
bank in a fixed deposit receipt for a period of three years with liberty to
draw monthly interest.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 07, 2016/nk
