Delhi High Court
Master Ajay Alias Atul vs Sunder Lal And Anr. on 3 May, 2016
$~R-60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03rd May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 484/2007
MASTER AJAY ALIAS ATUL ..... Appellant
Through None
versus
SUNDER LAL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. J N Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On 23.10.2001, the appellant, then aged about 12 years, was traveling
in bus bearing registration No.DL 1P B 1824 (offending vehicle) of Delhi
Transport Corporation (DTC) and when he was alighting at about 10.20 PM
at Wazirpur, J J Colony, bus stand, its driver (first respondent) put it in
sudden motion resulting in he losing balance and falling out of the vehicle to
be crushed under its rear wheel. An accident claim case (suit No.568/03)
was instituted on 11.02.2002 before the motor accident claims tribunal
(tribunal) impleading the said driver and DTC (second respondent) as parties
on the allegations that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of
the bus and, as a result of injuries suffered, the appellant had been rendered
permanently disabled. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated
10.03.2006, upheld the case of the claimant about injuries having been
suffered due to negligent driving of the bus. It awarded compensation in the
sum of `3,06,147/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing till
realization in favour of the claimant, directing the DTC to pay. It is stated at
bar by the counsel for DTC that the award granted by the tribunal has
already been satisfied.
2. The amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal included
`2,02,500/- as loss of future earnings, this having been calculated on the
basis of notional income of non-earning persons as specified in second
schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and treating the extent
of functional disability to the extent of 90%, in view of disability certificate
(Ex.PW4/1), applying the multiplier of 15. The tribunal also added
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.20,000/- towards special diet and
conveyance, Rs.30,000/- towards pain & suffering adding Rs.3,647/- as had
been proved to be the medical expenses incurred.
3. The appellant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation mainly contending that the disability suffered by him had
rendered him totally incapable for any job to earn his livelihood and that he
has been deprived of amenities of life rendering him totally handicapped
shorn of amenities of life.
4. When the matter is called out, no one has appeared for the appellant to
argue. This was the state of affairs even on the last date of hearing. Given
the old pendency of the appeal, there is no reason why it should be deferred
yet again.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for DTC and having perused the
record, this Court is of the opinion that the approach of the tribunal in
granting the award of compensation in the case was very conservative.
Having regard to the state to which the appellant has been reduced, what
with his disability arising out of dislocation of hip joint, loss of function at
hip, knee and ankle with fracture of pelvis and loss of urinary and sexual
functions, though the disability certificate (Ex.PW4/1) assessed the extent to
be 90%, it is a case where the claimant deserves to be treated as 100%
functionally disabled, making him wholly dependent on others throughout
the remainder of his life.
6. The claimant was 12 years' old on the relevant date. Having regard to
the fact that the claim arises out of permanent disability rendering him
handicapped incapable of any work for the remaining life, the loss of future
income should have been calculated on the multiplier of 18. Thus, on the
notional income of `15,000/-, the future income loss is recalculated as
(15,000 x 18) `2,70,000/-.
7. Having regard to the nature of injuries noted above, the non-pecuniary
damages awarded by the tribunal are wholly inadequate. Following the
precedent of G. Ravindranath v. E. Srinivas (2013) 12 SCC 455 where the
claimant had suffered fracture of pelvic region with complete rupture of
urethra rendering him totally impotent, the awards of `2 lakhs each under
the heads of loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects besides
`3 lakhs towards pain and agony are added.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the tribunal should not have
gone simply by the medical bills proved. The nature of injuries suffered
show substantial amount of money would have been spent in the treatment
which, for all one knows, might be continuing till date. Unfortunately, the
counsel for the claimant has not appeared to assist the court properly in this
regard. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view
the date of accident, medical expenses in the sum of `30,000/- are added,
this, of course, would be in addition to `20,000/- awarded by the tribunal
under the head of special diet and conveyance.
9. Thus, the total compensation payable in the case is calculated as
(2,70,000 + 2,00,000 + 2,00,000 + 3,00,000 + 30,000 + 20,000)
`10,20,000/-.
10. The compensation is enhanced accordingly.
11. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment dated
22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta
Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the appeal (10.08.2007) till realization.
12. It is directed that the entire enhanced portion of the award with
proportionate interest shall be deposited by DTC with the tribunal within 30
days of this judgment whereupon the tribunal shall release the same to the
claimant by investing it in a fixed deposit receipt in a nationalized bank of
his choice for a period of 10 years with provision for auto renewal, granting
right to draw monthly interest.
13. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 03, 2016
VLD
