Delhi High Court
Jiya Lal vs Lalit Kumar Jha And Ors. on 16 May, 2016
$~R-90
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 622/2007 and CM NO.14117/2007
JIYA LAL ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
LALIT KUMAR JHA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant, then 18 years old, working as a helper on a motor
vehicle bearing registration no.HR-38S-4645 (offending vehicle) suffered
injuries on account of negligent driving thereof resulting in an accident on
02.08.2005. He filed an accident claim case (petition no.244/2006) on
24.10.2005 seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle as parties, they being the first, second and third
respondents respectively in the appeal.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry and, by
judgment dated 28.04.2007, upheld his case about injuries having been
suffered due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The said finding
has attained finality. By the said judgment, the tribunal awarded
Rs.1,61,924/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the
date of filing of the petition till realization, the said amount being inclusive
of Rs.1,16,924/- towards loss of future income, Rs.30,000/- towards pain
and injury and Rs.15,000/- towards special diet & conveyance charges and
medicines.
3. It is noted from the tribunal's record that by an unsigned order
purportedly recorded on 19.07.2007 (appended at page 41 of the tribunal's
record) an award of Rs.48,718/- was further added towards loss of earnings
for the period of 16 months.
4. The claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement, his main
contention being that his disability to the extent of 54% in addition to left
lower limb merited enhanced compensation as the same has substantially
reduced his life span and income opportunities.
5. The appeal was put in the category of Regulars as per order dated
24.05.2010. Thereafter, whenever it has been taken up, neither the claimant
nor his counsel have chosen to appear. The situation has been same over the
last several dates of hearing. Given the old pendency, there is no reason
why the hearing should be deferred yet again.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the insurer and having perused
the record of the tribunal, it is found that the claimant had proved disability
certificate (Ex. PW1/24) issued by the board of doctors of Babu Jagjeevan
Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, on 31.07.2006 affirming that he had
been rendered 54% permanent disabled, his physical impairment in relation
to "Fuc of RTA with dislocation hip (R) and comp fracture of Lt. Lower
limb (BB Talus, medial mallolus, 4th toe with amputation) with skin loss on
the heel and stiff ankle (L)."
7. The tribunal, for reasons not explained, took the functional disability
to be 20% in relation to the whole body. It is noted that the claimant was
working as a helper on a motor vehicle. Given the nature of the injuries and
the disability suffered in the collision, his functional disability cannot be so
low as assessed by the tribunal. It deserves to be treated as 30% in relation
to the earning capacity. Since the claimant was 18 years old on the relevant
date, the loss of future income on this account should have been calculated
with the multiplier of 18 rather than 16. For such purposes, the tribunal
decided to assume the income of the claimant at the rate of minimum wages
of unskilled worker and took the same as Rs.3044.90. It appears the tribunal
failed to take note of the fact that the minimum wages for unskilled workers
had been increased to Rs.3165.90 with effect from 01.08.2005.
8. Thus, the loss of future income is recalculated as (Rs.3166/- x 30/100
x 12 x 18) Rs.2,05,156.80, rounded off to Rs.2,06,000/-. The loss of
earnings for 16 months (the period for which the claimant remained under
treatment), calculated as (Rs.3166 x 16), Rs.50,656/- rounded off to
Rs.51,000/- would need to be further added.
9. Adding the non-pecuniary damages in the total sum of Rs.45,000/-,
the compensation in the case comes to (Rs.2,06,000/- + Rs.51,000/- +
Rs.45,000/-) Rs.3,02,000/-.
10. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of interest
is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.]
11. The award is modified accordingly.
12. The insurer is directed to pay the enhanced award suitably adjusting
the amount already paid to the claimant by requisite deposit with the tribunal
within 30 days of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be released
by the tribunal to the claimant in the form of fixed deposit receipt in
nationalized bank of his choice for a period of 7 years with right to draw
periodical interest.
13. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 16, 2016
yg
