Delhi High Court
Nand Kishore Sharma vs Sandeep Dahiya & Ors. on 8 April, 2016
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 8th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 88/2010
NAND KISHORE SHARMA
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
SANDEEP DAHIYA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Ms.
Arpita Kumari, Advs. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident on
20.06.2004 involving rash driving of motor vehicle bearing registration
No.HR 26D 0802 which was admittedly insured against third party risk
with the third respondent (insurer) for the period in question. As a result of
the injuries, which included fractures of the spinal cord (C5 and C6), the
appellant has been rendered a case of quadriplegia having loss of sensation
in the entire body below neck with no ability to move his limbs or control
over the bladder or bowel movements, his disability having been proved
before the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) to be 100% permanent
in nature. On his accident claim case (suit No.158/2007) instituted on
11.01.2007, the tribunal, by judgment dated 21.11.2009 awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs.42,84,360/- calculating it as under:
1. Pain, shock & suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.1,81,930/-
3. Purchase of bed etc. Rs.30,000/-
4. Compensation for leaves Rs.1,11,350/-
5. Future loss of earnings Rs.26,47,080/- (without interest)
6. Payment already made for
medical attendant Rs.1,68,000/-
7. Future expenditure on
medical attendant Rs.5,46,000/- (without interest)
8. Future expenditure on physiotherapy,
conveyance & special diet etc. Rs.2,00,000/- (without interest)
9. Loss of comfort, amenities, frustration etc. Rs.2,50,000/-
Total compensation Rs.42,84,360/-
2. Except for the components indicated above where the interest was
denied, the awards under the other heads were made by the tribunal to be
subject to addition of interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization. The insurer was directed to satisfy the award within
the period specified.
3. The appellant came up with the appeal at hand seeking enhancement
of the compensation on account of loss of future earnings on the ground
that the entire income of the appellant was not taken into consideration.
The claimant also submits that the award under the head of pain &
suffering (Rs.1,50,000/-) is inadequate and further questions the denial of
interest on the component of future loss of earnings.
4. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant was allowed
opportunity to lead additional evidence in the course of which he examined
Mr. Dharmpal Tanwar (AW1), Accounts Officer in the office of General
Manager (Finance) at IGI Airport, Terminal 1D (Palam), New Delhi, who
proved the salary of the claimant on account of employment on the date of
the accident in the capacity of Traffic Superintendant in Indian Airlines
(collectively Ex.AW1/1).
5. The counsel for the claimant pointed out at the hearing that during
the inquiry before the tribunal the last salary certificate (Ex.PW4/B) was
produced which related to the month of February 2005, it indicating the
salary and allowance to be in the total sum of Rs.25,659/-. The tribunal on
that basis found that the components of the earnings on which the loss of
future income had to be calculated were in the sum of Rs.11,030/-, other
allowances (e.g. kit allowances etc) being personal in nature. The evidence
on record shows that the accident having occurred on 26.04.2004, the
appellant having been rendered permanently paraplegic, he was constrained
to take voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 20.09.2005. By the
additional evidence brought on record (Ex.AW1/1), he seeks to show that
on 20.06.2004, the date of accident, the total salary was Rs.17,433/-. The
submission is that the calculation of loss of future earnings should have
been made on such basis.
6. Having considered the submissions of both sides and the material on
record, this Court is constrained to reject the plea of the claimant on above
account. The salary certificate (Ex.PW4/B) was correctly taken into
account by the tribunal and, on that basis, appropriate conclusions were
drawn for calculation of the loss of future income. The last salary and
allowances, the loss of which is to be compensated, was subjected to
addition of the element of future prospects to the extent of 30% and rightly
so, keeping in mind the age of the claimant. It is noted that, in the
exceptional circumstances of the present case, the tribunal adopted a higher
multiplier (15) than what ordinarily had to be applied, to calculate the loss
of income in future.
7. The award under the head of pain, shock and suffering in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- is also found to be not inappropriate since, it must be noted, the
tribunal has added another sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of comfort,
amenities, etc. Put together both the said awards under non-pecuniary
heads of damages take care of the rights of the claimant.
8. The tribunal, bearing in mind the observations of the Supreme Court
in the judgment in R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1995
ACJ 366, has taken appropriate view on the question of interest. The
amount equivalent to loss of future earnings has come in the hands of the
claimant in advance. He cannot claim interest over and above it, except for
the delay, if any, in due compliance with the direction for the award to be
satisfied.
9. In above view, no further relief deserves to be granted in the appeal
at hand. It is consequently dismissed.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 08, 2016
VLD
