Delhi High Court
Ganesh vs Farjanda on 6 September, 2017
$~R-163
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 6th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 64/2010
GANESH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
versus
FARJANDA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant, then stated to be aged about 35 years old, serving
as Head Constable with Delhi Police, while on duty of checking
vehicles near R.R. Hospital, close to Dhaula Kuan, suffered injuries in
a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 13.06.2008 at about 9:45
p.m., statedly due to negligent driving of truck bearing registration
No.HR-55H-2066, which was admittedly insured against third party
risk with the third respondent (insurer). He suffered amputation of
both lower limbs and, as per the disability certificate (Ex.PW-1/2), the
board of doctors of Hindu Rao Hospital certified him to be
permanently disabled, the disability being one hundred per cent
(100%). He instituted accident claim case (MACT Claim Petition
No.558/2006) on 26.09.2006 impleading the driver, owner and insurer
of the offending vehicle as party respondents, they being first, second
and third respondents respectively, alleging that the accident had
occurred due to negligent driving of the truck. After inquiry, the
tribunal, by judgment dated 05.10.2009, accepted the claim for
compensation on the principle of fault liability. The said finding has
attained finality.
2. The tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.3,38,000/-, calculating it thus:-
Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.)
1. Medicines & Treatment 12,000/-
2. Loss of Income 51,800/-
3. Loss of Earning Power 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of Amenities 75,000/-
5. Pain and suffering 75,000/-
6. Conveyance & Special Diet 25,000/-
Total 3,38,000-
3. The liability to pay the afore mentioned amount was fastened on
the insurer. The appellant filed the present appeal with the grievances
that the compensation awarded is neither just nor fair.
4. It is pointed out that the tribunal awarded lump sum amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of earning power declining to
make any assessment on the basis of functional disability due to
amputation of both lower limbs. It is also the grievance of the
appellant that the awards under the non-pecuniary heads of damages
are grossly inadequate.
5. It is observed that the tribunal has not even made an attempt to
assess the functional disability which has been suffered due to
amputation of both lower limbs. The lump sum award of
Rs.1,00,000/- is not based on any methodical calculation of loss of
future earning capacity. In these circumstances, the proper course
would be to remit the matter to the tribunal for further inquiry and
fresh adjudication on the restricted question of computation of
compensation.
6. As is requested by the appellant, he will be given opportunity to
lead further evidence with regard to earnings of which loss in future is
to be covered by the determination. Needless to add, the parties which
contest will also be granted opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, if
any. Thus, the impugned judgment in so far as it determined the
compensation is set aside. The matter is remitted to the tribunal for
further proceedings in accordance with law. The parties shall appear
before the tribunal on 16th October, 2017. Needless to add, the amount
already received by the appellant under the impugned judgment shall
be liable to be adjusted.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
8. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2017/vk
