Delhi High Court
Subodh Dass vs Govind & Ors.(Bajaj Allianz Gen ... on 28 November, 2016
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28th November, 2016
+ MAC. APP.118/2015
SUBODH DASS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.C.S. Parasher, Advocate
Versus
GOVIND & ORS.(BAJAJ ALLIANZ
GEN INS CO. LTD.) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kumar Bhartiya, Advocate for
respondent no.1.
Mr. Rajat Brar, Advocate for
respondent no.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.3,51,451/- has been awarded by the
Claims Tribunal. The appellant is seeking enhancement of the award
amount.
2. On 9th February, 2013, the appellant was travelling in TSR
No.DL-1RF-6788 along with his wife and two minor children while
going from Dakshinpuri to Pandav Nagar when the TSR hit a
stationary car whereupon the appellant fell down from the TSR and
suffered grievous injuries. The appellant underwent three surgeries
during the period 9th February, 2013 to 14th July, 2013 and his left leg
above knee was amputated. The disability suffered by the appellant
has been assessed as 80% with respect to left lower limb as per the
disability certificate dated 15th January, 2014.
3. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh towards pain and
suffering, Rs.2 lakh towards loss of income, Rs.31,451/- towards
expenditure on treatment, Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance and special
diet. Total compensation awarded is Rs.3,51,451/- along with interest
@ 7.5%.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the
hearing that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
for loss of amenities and loss of earning capacity due to the permanent
disability. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation for the artificial limb. The Claims Tribunal
has also not awarded any compensation under the heads of
disfiguration, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life.
5. The appellant is present in Court along with his counsel and his
condition has been seen. The appellant was working as a drawing
man in a leather factory and claims to be earning Rs.15,000/- per
month. The minimum wages for skilled person at the relevant period
i.e. 9th February, 2013 were Rs.8,814/- per month. The appellant
submits that the cost of the artificial limb from M/s. Endolite India
Limited is approx. Rs.3,60,000/- as per the quotation filed by M/s.
Endolite India Limited before this Court recorded in the order dated
29th August, 2016. The appellant submits that he is not in a position to
work after the accident and is unemployed since then. He further
submits that though no termination letter has been issued by the
employer, he is not able to work and therefore, he is not being paid by
the employer. The appellant seeks Rs.12,69,216/- towards loss of
earning capacity and Rs.3,60,000/- towards cost of artificial limb. The
appellant also seeks compensation for loss of amenities as well as
future treatment. The appellant also seeks enhancement of rate of
interest from 7.5% to 9% consistently awarded by the Supreme Court
as well as this Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that loss of
earning capacity should be taken as 50% instead of 80%. It is further
submitted that the Claims Tribunal has granted recovery rights to
respondent no.3 to recover the award amount from respondents no.1
and 2. It is submitted that the recovery rights in respect of the
enhancement be given to respondent no.3.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that respondent
no.3 is not entitled to recovery rights and respondent no.1 shall file an
appeal to challenge the recovery rights granted to respondent no.3.
Respondent no.1 has not filed the cross-objections or a separate appeal
and therefore, his contentions against the recovery rights cannot be
considered in this appeal.
8. In the peculiar facts of this case and considering the condition
of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled
to the loss of earning capacity by taking the functional disability as
80%. Taking the minimum wages as Rs.8,814/- per month on the date
of the accident, applying the multiplier of 15 and taking the functional
disability as 80%, the loss of earning capacity is computed as
Rs.12,69,216/-. The appellant is also entitled to cost of Rs.3,60,000/-
towards the cost of artificial limb as per the estimate given by M/s.
Endolite India Limited. The rate of interest is enhanced from 7.5% to
9%. The interest on the compensation amount and the cost of artificial
limb would be sufficient to take care of the loss of amenities life and
future treatment and therefore, no further compensation is warranted
under these heads. The total compensation is computed as Rs.
Rs.19,80,667/-.
9. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced from
Rs.3,51,451/- to Rs.19,80,667/- along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
10. The enhanced award amount be deposited by respondent no.3
with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court by means of a cheque drawn in the
name of UCO Bank A/c Subodh Dass within a period of four weeks
from today.
11. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, UCO Bank shall keep
the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till further orders so
that the amount starts earning interest from the date of encashment of
the cheque.
12. List on 6th January, 2017 for disbursement of the award amount.
13. In the meantime, the appellant is directed to approach M/s.
Endolite India Limited for completing the formalities for fixing the
artificial limb and the appropriate order for release of Rs.3,60,000/- to
M/s. Endolite India Limited shall be passed on the next date of
hearing. M/s. Endolite India Limited shall, upon being approached by
the appellant, take the measurement, etc and complete all the relevant
formalities before the next date of hearing and the order for release of
the amount to M/s. Endolite India Limited shall be passed on the next
date of hearing and the amount shall be released directly to M/s.
Endolite India Limited.
14. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties
under the signature of the Court Master.
NOVEMBER 28, 2016 J.R. MIDHA, J.
dk
