Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar vs Umesh Chaudhary And Ors. on 8 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: March 08, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 199/2007
RAVINDER KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate with
appellant in person
versus
UMESH CHAUDHARY& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth and Mr. Shoumik
Mazumdar, Advocates for
respondent No.3-Insurer
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
In this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by
appellant, who has been granted compensation of `2,70,000/- with
interest @ 8% per annum vide Award of 26th August, 2006 on account of
injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 19 th June, 2005. The facts
are already noted in impugned Award and so need no reproduction.
Suffice to note that appellant was aged 34 years at the time of accident
and was a self-employed driver said to be earning `5,000/- per month.
Apart from the evidence of appellant-Claimant, there is other evidence to
prove the medical report of appellant and the factum of accident. The
owner and driver of offending vehicle have also stepped into the witness
box to put forth their version. On the basis of evidence led, learned
Tribunal has rendered the impugned Award. Under the head of 'loss of
income', compensation of `20,000/- and under the head of 'medical
expenses and special diet, etc.' `1,50,000/- has been granted to appellant
by learned Tribunal. Under the head of 'pain and suffering',
compensation of `50,000/- has been granted and under the head of 'loss
of amenities and general damages', `50,000/- has been granted to
appellant.
During the pendency of this appeal, appellant has led additional
evidence regarding the medical treatment undertaken by him post the
Award period. To prove the medical expenses incurred by him, appellant
has got examined Dr. Sanjay Yadav (AW-2) from the concerned hospital
to prove the Disability Certificate indicating 60% permanent disability.
The medical bills placed on record by appellant are to the extent of
`18,605/- which includes the hospitalization charges as well. To seek
enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for appellant submits that
'future prospects' have not been taken into consideration. It is also
submitted that the expenses incurred by appellant in getting treatment
post Award, needs to be granted to him and that awarded amount ought to
carry interest @ 9% per annum instead of 8% per annum.
On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Insurer supports
the impugned Award and submits that appellant was not in permanent
employment and so, appellant is not entitled to any compensation on
account of 'future prospects'. However, it is submitted that grant of
medical expenses incurred by appellant post Award period is justified.
Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that appellant is not entitled to any compensation on
account of 'future prospects' because he was not in permanent
employment. A Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari
& Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 has reiterated the
guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others
v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 to grant
compensation under the head of 'future prospects'. Applying the dictum
of Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari (supra) to the facts of instant case, I
hold that since the income of appellant-injured has been assessed on
minimum wages, therefore, appellant is not entitled to any compensation
under the head of 'future prospects'. However, additional evidence of Dr.
Sanjay Yadav (AW2) reveals that permanent disability of appellant-
injured has been assessed to be 60% in the right lower limb as per
Disability Certificate (Ex.AW2/1). In a case of permanent disability of
69% in the lower limb, Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and Ors. v.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735
has assessed the functional disability to be 35%. In the instant case, this
Court had the occasion to observe appellant-claimant (who was injured in
this accident), walking and so, in the facts and the circumstances of this
case, the overall functional disability of appellant is found to be 30%.
Learned Tribunal has erred in not granting any compensation under
the head of 'loss of earning capacity' due to permanent disability suffered
in this accident. While taking the income of appellant-injured to be
`3,160/- per month and in view of Supreme Court's decision in Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, by applying the multiplier of
16, the 'loss of earning capacity' is assessed as `3,160/- X 12 X 16 X
30% = `1,82,016/- (rounded off to `1,82,020/-).
The medical expenses of `18,605/- incurred by appellant-injured
post Award period are also granted to him. However, compensation
granted to appellant under other heads is found to be just and fair and is
accordingly maintained. The enhanced compensation payable to appellant
is as under: -
1. Loss of earning capacity ` 1,82,020/-
2. Medical Expenses and ` 1,68,605/-
special diet, etc.
(including `18,605/-
incurred post award
period)
2. Pain and Sufferings ` 50,000/-
3. Loss of Income ` 20,000/-
4. Loss of Amenities and ` 50,000/-
general damages
Total ` 4,70,625/-
The interest granted @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount is on
the lower side. Accordingly, in light of a recent decision of Supreme
Court in Shivakumar M. v. The Managing Director, BMTC, 2017 SCC
Online SC 148, the interest granted on the awarded compensation is
enhanced from 8% to 9% per annum.
In light of the aforesaid, compensation awarded is enhanced from
`2,70,000/- to `4,70,625/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
the date of deposit of the enhanced amount. Respondent-Insurer is
granted four weeks time to deposit the enhanced compensation of
`2,00,625/- with interest @ 9% per annum and differential interest on the
entire awarded amount with learned Tribunal, who shall ensure that the
enhanced compensation is directly transmitted into the bank account of
appellant-Claimant upon his furnishing bank account details.
This appeal is disposed of while modifying the impugned Award
in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 08, 2017
s
