Delhi High Court
Parminder Singh Bedi vs Vijay Kumar Arora on 3 May, 2016
$~R-53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03rd May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 461/2007
PARMINDER SINGH BEDI ..... Appellant
Through Mr. M M Singh, Adv.
versus
VIJAY KUMAR ARORA ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant suffered injuries in motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 11.07.2003, statedly on account of negligent driving of motor
vehicle described as truck bearing registration No.HR 38 C 3981 (offending
vehicle), insured against third party risk with the third respondent (insurer),
it having been driven at the given point of time by the first respondent
(driver) and being owned by the second respondent (owner). As a result of
the injuries suffered, the appellant (claimant) was rendered permanently
disabled, it having been certified (Ex.PW8/A) to be physical disability to the
extent of 55.65% and hearing disability to the extent of 68%, the composite
joint disability being to the extent of 86%.
2. The appellant (claimant) filed an accident claim case (suit No.193/03)
on 05.11.2003 seeking compensation impleading the three respondents as
parties. The tribunal held inquiry and on that basis held that the accident
had occurred and injuries had been suffered due to negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. By judgment dated 19.04.2007, compensation in the sum
of `13,76,000/- was awarded in his favour and the insurance company was
directed to satisfy the said award with interest. The amount awarded an
compensation includes loss of future earning capacity worked out to the
extent of `5,46,000/- calculated on the multiplier of 13, treating the
functional disability to the extent of 50%, against annual income of
`84,000/- proved on the basis of income tax return (ITR) for assessment
year 2004-05. The appeal has been filed seeking enhancement.
3. The only ground pressed in the appeal is to the effect that the loss on
account of future earning due to disability was wrongly calculated on the
multiplier of 13. It is pointed out that the claimant was 34 years old on the
date of accident and multiplier of 16 would apply. Reliance is placed on
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121.
4. The contention of the appellant must be accepted. At the age of 34,
the future earning capacity has to be worked out (in view of the future
disability) on the multiplier of 16. Since the annual loss of earning capacity
was calculated at `42,000/-, the compensation awarded needs to be
enhanced by (42,000 x 3) `1,26,000/-. Ordered accordingly. Needless to
add, it shall carry interest (6%) as levied by the tribunal.
5. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with
proportionate interest with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to
be released to the appellant - claimant.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 03, 2016/VLD
