Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1924 (DEL)

RAM AVTAR v. DAVINDER SINGH

2007-11-26

KAILASH GAMBHIR

body2007
JUDGMENT : Kailash Gambhir, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award on the ground that the same is quite on the lower side. Appellant has claimed enhancement of compensation. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the payment of Rs. 33,000 towards the expenses incurred by the appellant for his medical treatment after his discharge from the hospital. The second grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000 for disability without taking into consideration the loss to the appellant in his earning capacity due to the kind of permanent disablement suffered by him. The third grievance of the appellant is that a meagre amount of Rs. 20,000 has been granted towards pain and suffering. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 3. Ms. Suman Bagga, counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud and Others, to support her argument that in a case of permanent disablement of 45 per cent, the Apex Court has granted interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount as well as deducted 1/3rd towards miscellaneous expenses. Counsel for the respondent also contends that no future prospects can be considered in the present case as no evidence to this effect was led by appellant. 4. The Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000 p.m. by taking aid of the Minimum Wages Act. Although the appellant has placed salary certificate showing his income as Rs. 4,500 per month but the Tribunal has not believed the said certificate as no witness from the company where the appellant was stated to be working was summoned to prove the same. The income of the appellant was thus taken at Rs. 3,000 p.m. The said wages of Rs. 3,000 are not even as per the Minimum Wages Act as the appellant on the relevant date of accident was matriculate and he has proved his said qualification before the Tribunal vide Exh. PW1/228. The income of the appellant was thus taken at Rs. 3,000 p.m. The said wages of Rs. 3,000 are not even as per the Minimum Wages Act as the appellant on the relevant date of accident was matriculate and he has proved his said qualification before the Tribunal vide Exh. PW1/228. Once the appellant was possessing the said qualification on the date of accident and he was working as an electrician, therefore, at least the income applicable to a matriculate under Minimum Wages Act could be taken into consideration. The income of matriculate under the Minimum Wages Act on the relevant date was Rs. 3,231.90 and making it a round figure, the same is taken as Rs. 3,200. The multiplier of 16 is applicable under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act as on the date of accident, the appellant was of 40 years of age. 5. This Court has already taken a view that minimum wages get doubled in a period of 10 years and applying the same yardstick and taking an average of both the incomes, the monthly loss of the appellant for suffering 66 per cent disability would come to Rs. 4,800 per month and deducting 1/3rd for miscellaneous expenses, the net loss would come to Rs. 3,200 and applying multiplier of 16, total loss would be about Rs. 6,14,400. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in all towards the permanent disability and the same is enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. 6. As regards pain and suffering, I find myself in agreement with learned Counsel for the appellant that a meagre amount of Rs. 20,000 has been allowed. The appellant admittedly suffers 66 per cent disability in relation to its left arm which has practically rendered himself totally dysfunctional so far as his job of electrician is concerned. Rs. 20,000 would be an inadequate amount towards pain and suffering and the same is accordingly enhanced to Rs. 30,000. 7. As regards the contention of counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the medical bills placed and proved on record by the appellant, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. If the said bills have been placed and proved on record and the same have not been already included in the amount of Rs. As regards the contention of counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the medical bills placed and proved on record by the appellant, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. If the said bills have been placed and proved on record and the same have not been already included in the amount of Rs. 2,93,000 as granted by the Tribunal, then the same may be taken into consideration for paying the amount incurred by the appellant for purchase of medicines and medical treatment after his discharge from the hospital. 8. As regards, the contention of counsel for the respondent that the interest of 6 per cent has been granted by the Apex Court, perusal of the judgment shows that the sum is on the enhanced amount of compensation. The Tribunal has already awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The said amount has already been paid to the appellant and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere on the said rate of interest. However, the respondent shall pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. 9. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 9.1.2008.