Delhi High Court
Shiv Charan vs Raj Kumar & Ors (United India ... on 17 January, 2020
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 17.01.2020.
+ MAC.APP. 728/2019
SHIV CHARAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sood, Advocate.
versus
RAJ KUMAR & ORS (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD )
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhuvaneshwar Tyagi and Mr.
Vinayak Kamra, Advocates for R-2
with R-2 in person.
Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, Advocate for
insurance company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 36752/2019 & CM APPL. 36753/2019
1. These applications seek filing and re-filing of the appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, they are allowed.
The delay in filing and re-filing of the appeal is condoned.
3. The applications stand disposed-off.
4. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 18.08.2018
passed by the learned MACT in MACT No. 14526/15, insofar as it has erred
in not granting compensation towards 'loss of future prospects' to the
injured/appellant who has suffered 68% disability apropos his right upper
limb. The same has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as 40%
functional disability. The appellant claims to have been an embroiderer by
vocation. His salary was however not proven, therefore, the minimum wages
applicable to an unskilled workman were taken into consideration while
computing the amount of compensation payable.
5. Be that as it may, the extensive injury to right hand, which is the main
hand of most people, would incapacitate the injured to a large extent. The
assessment of 40% functional disability by the learned Tribunal, calls for no
inference.
6. The Court would note that if the appellant were to be working as an
unskilled/daily wager, he would now not be the first person to be employed
in the labour market because of his 68% disability in the right upper limb.
His likelihood of getting employed as a daily wager has been immensely
affected because of the physical disability and the resultant functional
disability. However, he could possibly rehabilitate himself in some other
vocation albeit with immense effort and some difficulty.
7. The appellant/injured was 42 years of age at the time of the motor
vehicular accident. He would be functionally disabled for life upto 40%,
therefore, he will be entitled to an addition of 40% towards 'loss of future
income' as well. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits
that the compensation towards 'loss of future prospects' should be akin to
the percentage laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC, which has held that, for a
person aged between 40 years and 50 years, addition of 25% would be
granted towards 'loss of future prospects'. It is contended that the same has
also been held in Jagdish vs. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he would be happy
with grant of 25% towards 'loss of future prospects'. The Court would note
however that in Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.,
2019 SCC OnLine SC, the Supreme Court had granted addition 50%
towards 'loss of future prospects' for a paraplegic. However, since the
learned counsel for the injured is himself satisfied with the addition of 25%
as compensation towards 'loss of future prospects', the same is granted to
the injured.
9. The relevant amount payable shall be Rs. 5,74,830/- (Rs. 8,554/-
x12x14x40%+125/100)
10. The altered amounts, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, shall be deposited by
the insurer, before the learned Tribunal, within three weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, to be released to the beneficiary of the Award
in terms thereof.
11. The appeal, alongwith pending applications, is disposed-off in the
above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
JANUARY 17, 2020
SSC/AB
