Delhi High Court
Naresh Chand Jain vs Habib Alam @ Tinku & Ors. on 9 October, 2017
$~R-286
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 9th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 27/2011
NARESH CHAND JAIN ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
HABIB ALAM @ TINKU & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, he having filed the accident claim petition (Suit No.
98/2009) on 02.06.2005, alongside another claim petition (Suit
No.99/2009) filed by his wife, both having suffered injuries in the
same motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 27.02.2005 at
about 8:30 PM, proven at the Tribunal to have been caused due to
negligent driving of motor cycle bearing registration No. DL-7S V-
9401 admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in
question with the third respondent (insurer). The Tribunal, by
judgment dated 25.08.2010, upheld the case for compensation on the
principle of fault liability and awarded total compensation in the sum
of Rs.2,26,790/- in favour of the appellant calculating it thus:-
Cost on treatment : Rs.25,000/-
Pain and sufferings : Rs. 5,000/-
Conveyance & Special diet : Rs. 4,000/-
For attendant : Rs. 4,000/-
Loss of Income : Rs. 6090/-
Future loss of Income : Rs.1,82,700/-
Total : Rs. 2,26,790/-
2. The Tribunal directed the third respondent to pay the aforesaid
amount to the appellant with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.
3. Aggrieved with the compensation awarded, the present appeal
was filed seeking enhancement. The appeal was put in the category of
Regulars as per the order dated 05.04.2013. When it is taken up for
hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The matter
has been considered with the assistance of the counsel for the third
respondent (the insurer) and by a perusal of the record.
4. It is noted that the claimant had suffered injuries that included
fracture of the left leg and compound fracture of the hip bone besides
other multiple injuries all over the body. The injuries in the left lower
limb have resulted in permanent locomotor impairment of the said part
of the body, it having been assessed to be permanent disability to the
extent of 73% as per the disability certificate (Ex.PW-3/A). As per the
evidence, the appellant was engaged in earning his livelihood from his
own private business and having regard to these facts, the assessment
of the Tribunal taking it to be a case of functional disability to the
extent of 50% permanent in nature which is found to be just and
appropriate, calling for no interference.
5. It is, however, noted that Tribunal made an error in calculating
the loss of future income due to disability by deducting 1/3rd towards
miscellaneous expenses which was uncalled for. It is also noted that
the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 for such purpose going by the
age (41 years) in which view such calculations should have resulted in
the multiplier of 14 to be adopted.
6. By this appeal, the claimant had raised contentions that his
income should have been taken as Rs.4500/- per month. This has no
basis. Though he claimed to be earning Rs.5000/- per month from
private business, no evidence in this regard was adduced and, thus, the
Tribunal was constrained to go by the minimum wages of Rs. 3045/-
per month. Loss of future income due to permanent disability is, thus,
recomputed as (Rs.3045/2x12x14) Rs.2,55,780/-.
7. The appeal also raised grievance about the inadequacy of
compensation under the heads of loss of income, expenditure towards
attendant charges, expenditure on account of conveyance & special
diet and damages towards pain and sufferings. Given the nature of
injuries suffered and the adverse effect the same having left in the
aftermath, grievance of the appellant appears to be correct.
8. Going by the age of the claimant and the nature of injuries
which included fracture of the hip bone it is inconvincible that he
would have lost income for only two months. The evidence that the
claimant had remained immobile, unable to move around, for a period
of 12 months has remained unimpeached. Therefore loss of income is
recalculated as (Rs.3045x12) Rs.36540/-.
9. The compensation on account of expenditure towards attendant
charges, conveyance & special diet being on the lower side, also
deserves to be increased to Rs.15,000/- each. Having regard to the
nature of injuries and the permanent handicap they have left, the
compensation towards pain and suffering is increased to Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. Adding the element of cost of treatment of Rs.25,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal, the total compensation comes to (Rs.2,55,780 +
36,540 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 1,00,000 + 25,000) Rs.4,47,230/- rounded
off to Rs.4,48,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Eight thousand only).
The award is enhanced accordingly. Needless to add, it shall carry
interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The third respondent is directed
to satisfy the enhanced amount by depositing requisite amount with
the Tribunal within 30 days.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 09 , 2017
mr
