Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 759 (DEL)

Parminder Singh v. Radhey Shyam

2012-02-24

G.P.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT : G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Parminder Singh seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs. 6,16,251/-awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 01.04.2007. 2. On 01.04.2007, the Appellant was proceeding in his car DL-5C-1386 from Kala Amb towards Sadhoura (Haryana). A tanker No.HR-38-C-7499 being driven by the First Respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit the Appellant’s car. On account of forceful impact, the car overturned and the tanker capsized. The Appellant suffered fracture of right femur, fracture of super condylar right femur and fracture of radius shaft right hand. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW1/1, the Doctor opined the Appellant to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% in relation to his right lower limb. 3. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the First Respondent. It was held that the Appellant was carrying on business in the name and style of Bhatti Engineer Works and had returned an income of Rs.60,150/-, Rs.84,800/-and Rs.99,750/-for the Assessment Year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Claims Tribunal took the loss of earning capacity on account of the injuries to be 25% and held that he might not have attended to his work for five to six months. The Claims Tribunal awarded the following compensation: ii. i. iii. iv. Loss of Amenities, Enjoyment and Compensation for Disfigurement Compensation towards Pain and Sufferings Loss of Earning Capacity due to Injuries Rs.60,000/-Rs.65,000/-Rs.3,99,000/- vi. v. Total Compensation towards Conveyance and Special Diet(without Bills) Loss of Earning of Petitioner for Six Months Expenses towards Medical Bills Rs.15,000/-Rs.49,875/-Rs.27,376/-Rs.6,16,251/- 4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant: i) The Claims Tribunal should have awarded loss on income for 24 months instead of 06 months granted by it; ii) The Claims Tribunal should have granted a higher multiplier than 16 considering the longevity of life; iii) No compensation was awarded towards future medical expenditure; iv) The compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary heads was very low; v) The Claims Tribunal ought to have added future prospects as the deceased was in his own business and his income was consistently increasing. 5. The first four contentions recorded above are liable to rejected. 5. The first four contentions recorded above are liable to rejected. Although the Appellant claims that he should have been awarded loss of income for 24 months, yet he did not produce any evidence that he was confined to bed and was unable to attend to work even for a period of six months. The Appellant remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh from 01.04.2007 to 03.04.2007. He was then shifted to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi where he remained admitted from 03.04.2007 to 10.05.2007. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and in the absence of any specific evidence as to the Appellant’s confinement to his home, the Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding six months loss of income. 6. The Appellant was aged 32 years and the multiplier of 16 as applied by the Claims Tribunal is in consonance with the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, the Appellant cannot claim any higher multiplier. 7. The Appellant did not lead any evidence for any future medical treatment for which he might incur some expenditure. In the absence of any such evidence, the Claims Tribunal was justified in not granting any compensation towards future medical expenditure. 8. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, the Claims Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.65,000/-towards pain and suffering and Rs.60,000/-towards loss of amenities/disfigurement. Considering that the Appellant suffered multiple fracture and remained admitted in Hospital for a period of one month and ten days and then had to take rest at his home to recover from the injuries, the award of compensation as stated earlier cannot be faulted with when separate compensation towards earning capacity was granted. 9. As stated earlier, the Appellant’s income was consistently increasing from Rs.60,150/-in the Assessment Year 2004-05 to Rs.99,750/-in the Assessment Year 2006-07. Thus, the Appellant was filing Income Tax Return when he was a young boy of 29 years and his income from his own business was consistently increasing. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the deceased’s income towards his future prospects, but deduction of Income Tax was required to be made from the income while computing the loss of earning capacity. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the deceased’s income towards his future prospects, but deduction of Income Tax was required to be made from the income while computing the loss of earning capacity. As far as percentage of loss of earning capacity is concerned, in the absence of any evidence, the Claims Tribunal was justified in reducing the earning capacity in respect of whole body to 25% functional disability when the disability certificate indicated 50% disability towards his right lower limb. The loss of earning capacity thus comes to Rs. 5,98,500/-(99750 -Nil (Income Tax) + 50% X 16 X 25%). 10. The overall compensation is enhanced from Rs.6,16,251/-to Rs. 8,15,751/-which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced amount of compensation along with interest shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within 30 days. 11. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be held in the Appellant’s name in a Fixed Deposit in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch for a period of one year. 12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.