Delhi High Court
Sarwan Kumar vs Sandeep Singh & Ors. on 14 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 14, 2017
+ MAC. APP. 618/2008 & C.M.17772/2008, 791/2010
SARWAN KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Yashpal Laroya, Advocate
versus
SANDEEP SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
respondent-Insurer
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Appellant, a fruit seller aged about 27 years, had sustained grievous
injuries in a road accident on 30th July, 2005. Impugned Award of 30th
May, 2008 grants compensation of `1,08,681/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum to appellant on account of injuries sustained by him in
this accident. The facts are already noted in impugned Award and so,
need no reproduction. Suffice to note that appellant was driving a two-
wheeler scooter when he was hit by Tata Sumo from behind. Apart from
the evidence of appellant-Injured, there is evidence of an official of
respondent-Insurer. On the basis of evidence led, impugned Award has
been rendered. As per order of 29th January, 2009, service is complete in
this appeal.
In this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought. By way of
additional evidence, Disability Certificate (Ex.AW1/2) of appellant is
proved on record, which indicates that appellant had suffered 35%
permanent locomotor impairment in relation to right lower limb. As per
Medical Certificate of 26th August, 2008 (Ex.AW1/1) issued by Guru
Tegh Bahadur Hospital, permanent disability suffered by appellant has
resulted in shortening of his leg by 2.5 centimeters.
Learned counsel for appellant-Injured submits that learned
Tribunal has erred in holding that appellant was responsible for the
accident in question to the extent of 30% and that there was no
contributory negligence on part of appellant. To submit so, attention of
this Court is drawn to certified copy of Site Plan of the spot and it is
submitted that the negligence was entirely of the offending vehicle i.e.
Tata Sumo in question. It is further submitted that in the face of the
Disability Certificate, loss of earning capacity ought to be taken to be
30% and the compensation granted needs to be suitably enhanced. Lastly,
it is submitted that the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary
heads is on the lower side and it needs to be appropriately enhanced.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Insurer supports
impugned Award. Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record and Supreme Court's decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar &
Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 I find that in the face of Site Plan of the spot,
it cannot be said that there was any contributory negligence on the part of
appellant. Learned Tribunal has erred in holding that contributory
negligence of appellant was to the extent of 30%. Further, in view of
Disability Certificate and the Medical Certificate, the functional capacity
of appellant ought to be taken to be 15% and since appellant was a
matriculate, minimum wages applicable are `3,613.19/- per month, which
are rounded off to `3,615/- per month. By applying the multiplier of 17,
appellant's 'loss of earning capacity' is assessed as `3,615/- x 12 x 17 x
15% = `1,10,619/-, which is rounded off to `1,10,620/-.
Learned Tribunal has granted `15,000/- towards 'special diet,
conveyance, etc.' and `9,000/- towards 'attendant charges'. The
compensation granted under these heads appears to be just and reasonable
and hence, it is maintained. However, no case is made out for grant of
compensation under the head of 'future medical treatment' to the tune of
`15,000/- and hence, it is disallowed. The compensation granted under
the head of 'pain and sufferings' is enhanced from `30,000/- to `1 lac
and compensation of `1 lac is granted to appellant under the head of 'loss
of amenities of life'. Thus, compensation payable to appellant is
reassessed as under:-
Loss of dependency `1,10,620/-
Conveyance and special diet `15,000/-
Attendant Charges `9,000/-
Pain and sufferings `1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities of life `1,00,000/-
Total `3,34,620/-
rounded off to
`3,34,700/-
The interest granted on the awarded compensation by learned
Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum is also found to be on the lower side. So, 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 7.5% to 9% per
annum.
In light of the aforesaid, compensation awarded is enhanced from
`1,08,681/- to `3,34,700/-. 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
`2,26,019/-, which is rounded off to `2,26,020/-, with interest @ 9% per
annum and differential interest on the entire awarded amount with learned
Tribunal. Upon appellant-Injured furnishing his bank account details,
learned Tribunal shall ensure that the enhanced compensation alongwith
interest component is directly transmitted into the bank account of
appellant-Injured.
This appeal and the applications are disposed of while modifying
the impugned Award in aforesaid terms.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2017
s
