Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.A. 659/2006
th
% Judgment reserved on: 15 May, 2013
th
Judgment delivered on: 29 May, 2013
S.K. CHAUHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anil Aggarwal and Mr. Puneet
Aggarwal, Advs.
versus
RAHIS AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgement dated 28.04.2006, whereby Ld. Tribunal has granted
compensation for a sum of Rs.7,60,865/- with interest @ 6% per
annum.
2. Vide the instant appeal appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount on the ground that due the accident in question
appellant’s right arm got amputated and his right leg was fractured and
was kept in a Cast. Brace-fitting was done for three months. His Fiat
car was also totally damaged in the accident.
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 1 of 10
3. In support of the claim, the appellant examined himself as PW2
wherein he stated that when he reached Village-Baheri on Roorkee
Road, a Canter bearing registration no. UP-02-6524 (hereinafter called
the offending vehicle) which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner came from the opposite side and collided with his car. Due to
the impact, petitioner’s car overturned and all the occupants sustained
injuries. They were taken to M.G. Hospital at Hardwar by the officials
of PS-Jawalapur. Thereafter, he was shifted to St. Stephens Hospital,
Delhi on the next day.
4. Appellant further deposed that he remained admitted in St.
Stephens Hospital, Delhi from 03.04.1999 to 27.04.1999. He testified
that he was the Director of M/s. Compact Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd.
and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/-per month. On account of the
accident he could not look after his business for about six months.
Further deposed that he spent a sum of Rs.90,000/- on his medical
treatment and care. The charges of towing his Car to Delhi for
Rs.2,200/- is Ex.PW2/22 and the estimate of its repair was Rs.35,000.
His medical bills are Ex.PW2/2 to Ex.PW2/18. He had to purchase an
artificial limb, receipt of which is Ex.PW2/19. The bills of St. Stephen
Hospitals are Ex.PW2/20 & Ex.PW2/21and his disability certificate is
Ex.PW2/1. The photographs of the accidental car are Ex.PW2/23 to
Ex.PW2/27. The medical report of St. Stephens Hospital, where he
remained admitted from 03.04.1999 to 26.04.1999 is Ex.PW1/1.
5. To prove the salary of the appellant, he has examined PW3 from
his office, who brought the Memorandum and Article of Association
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 2 of 10
Ex.PW3/1 and photocopies of various qualifications of the petitioner
are Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/7.
6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
the appellant is a Graduate Engineer and he has proved that he was
earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Despite, Ld. Tribunal has
considered the minimum wages Rs.3,108/- per month applicable to
Graduate at the relevant time.
7. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a judgment delivered by this court
in case of Meenu Tognatta & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors. in MAC.No. 238/2012 decided on 20.04.2012, wherein this court
has passed as under:
“In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by Lrs. v.
Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 (5) SCC 667, death
of a young boy, aged 20 years took place in an accident
which happened in the year 1972. The deceased was a
student of B.Sc Ist year (Biology), a compensation of
Rs.1,46,900/- was increased and rounded off to
Rs.1,50,000/-.
In Ramesh Chand Joshi v. New India Assurance
Company MAC APP.212-213/2006 decided on
20.01.2010 this Court took the potential income of a BE
(Bio-Technology) First year student of Delhi College of
Engineer (DCE) Rs.38,333/- per month.
The gross salary of a Group „A‟ officer in the Central
and the State Govt. on the date of the accident i.e.
19.11.2004 on the basic pay of Rs.8,000/- was
Rs.17,980/- per month. If a qualified degree holder
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 3 of 10
Engineer joined a Govt. service in the year 2004, he
would get a salary of Rs.8,000/- plus all allowances. The
placements in Private Sectors were on a much higher
salary.
The loss of dependency which works out in the case of
deceased Disha thus comes to Rs.22,68,000/- (18,000/- +
50% x 1/2 x 12 x 14).”
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the above cited
cases, claimants were second year students of Engineering, whereas
the appellant is a qualified Engineer, therefore, Ld. Tribunal has
wrongly considered the minimum wages applicable to Graduates. In
above cited case, Ld. Tribunal has considered the monthly income of
the deceased as Rs.18,000/-, however, in the present case, appellant
claimed less salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Ld. Tribunal
failed to consider even the said income.
9. Regarding second issue, Ld. Counsel has argued that there was
amputation of right arm and the appellant was under continuous
treatment for three months as has been proved before the Ld. Tribunal
and due to which, he could not attend his work for about six months.
However, the Ld. Tribunal has considered that he remained out of
work for a period of four months only and accordingly granted a sum
of Rs.12,432/- towards of loss of income, which is on a very lower
side.
10. Regarding third issue, counsel for the appellant has argued that
Ld. Tribunal, while granting compensation on disability, has wrongly
considered 40% disability as per Ex.PW2/1. Ld. Counsel submitted
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 4 of 10
that in Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 amputation below
shoulder with stump less than 20.32 cms from tip of acromion, 80% is
considered and even loss of hand or of the thumb and four fingers of
one hand if amputated are being considered 60% disability.
11. Ld. Counsel submitted that as per the disability certificate, the
disability has been assessed more than 40% and that could be 80% or
60% or more even 100%. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has wrongly
considered the functional disability as 40%.
12. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the issue regarding salary
certificate and academic qualification of the appellant / claimant which
was proved by PW3 Jagdip Jatta, National Sales Man of Compact
Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd. and no suggestion was put to the said
witness by the Insurance Company. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has
considered those documents as proof. Even otherwise, the Insurance
Company has not produced any witness contrary to the proof produced
by the appellant.
13. To sum up his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the salary of the appellant has been considered on a very
lower side. His disability has been wrongly considered as 40% and his
loss of income of four months has been considered, whereas he could
not resume his work for six months. Hence, the appellant is seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
insurance company submitted that the appellant examined himself
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 5 of 10
before the Ld. Tribunal and during cross-examination he stated as
under:
“I have not brought any document pertaining to my
working as Director, Compact Diagnosis. I have also
not brought any document in support of my earnings. It
is wrong to suggest that I was not earning Rs.12,000/-
per month. I have not filed any document pertaining to
my qualification. It is wrong to suggest that I did not
spend Rs.90,000/- on my treatment. I have no
documentary evidence as regards money spent by me on
my car. My car was not comprehensive insured. I do not
have the policy of my car‟s insurance. I do not have any
documentary record to show that I remained away from
work for six months.”
15. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the absence of any stringent proof
of his claim, Ld. Tribunal has rightly considered the minimum wages
applicable to a graduate and whatever medical bills were produced,
each and every bill was considered and accordingly a compensation for
a sum of Rs.44,012/- was granted.
16. Further submitted that for loss of income, Ld. Tribunal granted
Rs.12,432/- and for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities of
life Rs.1,00,000/- was granted. Even for loss of future prospects, Ld.
Tribunal has granted Rs.4,64,371/- and for damage towards the
appellant’s car a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted.
17. As far as the disability is concerned, Ld. Counsel submitted that
appellant has relied upon a Schedule of Workmen’s Compensation
Act, however, no relief can be granted under this Act, if the petition
has been filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 6 of 10
cannot choose one relief under the Motor Vehicles Act and other under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has
rightly considered the disability as 40% because in the said disability
certificate it is only stated that he received more than 40% permanent
disability and is entitled to get all benefits as per the Govt. Rules.
18. Regarding the medical bill, Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld.
Tribunal has considered each and every bill of the medical expenses
incurred by the appellant during his treatment and post-treatment.
Therefore, no enhancement can be considered in the absence of any
proof of the treatment received by the appellant.
19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
20. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anrs. 2011 ACJ 1 , the
Supreme Court held as under:-
“ The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act'
for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair,
reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal
shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude
from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability
and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only
to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to
lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 7 of 10
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned.”
21. In the instant case, injured/appellant was aged between 35 to 40
years at the time of accident. He was a qualified Graduate Engineer
and enjoying good health. Ex. PW3/1 shows that the injured was
working as Director at the time of the accident.
22. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T.A. Nicholas & Ors. 2010
ACJ 1289, the injured was student of B.E. Computer Science (Final
Year). Ld Tribunal while calculating the loss of future income
considered income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Same was upheld by the
Appellate Court (High Court of Madras).
23. In case of Divisional Manager and the New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Mr. T.Chelladurai, Tmt. D. Maragadam & C.
Nivitha Varadhalakshmi (Madurai Bench) , 2010 ACJ 382 , deceased
was a student of final year Automobile Engineering Course. Tribunal
considered the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month. Same was enhanced
by the High Court of Tamil Nadu to Rs.7,000/- per month.
24. In the instant case, learned Tribunal took the minimum wages
applicable to Graduate at the time of the accident, i.e., Rs.3,108/-.
Since the injured was a Graduate Engineer and Director in one
company, considering the above referred judgments, age, date of
accident, exposure and health of the injured, I hold the income of the
injured at Rs.12,000/- per month as claimed.
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 8 of 10
25. On the second issue, due to the accident, appellant’s right leg
was amputated, his right leg was fractured and was kept in cast.
Appellant was under continuous treatment for three months, same was
proved before the learned Tribunal, due to which he could not resume
his work for about six months, I accordingly, award loss of income for
six months.
26. On the issue of disability, injured produced a disability
certificate Ex.PW2/1 before the learned Tribunal. As per the same,
injured suffered more than 40% permanent disability. Accordingly,
the learned Tribunal, while calculating the loss of future income on
account of disability considered permanent disability of 40%.
27. Since the claim petition filed before the learned Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal, appellant cannot seek benefit of disability as per
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Principles for fixing
compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923 are altogether different.
28. So, on the issue of disability, I found that the learned Tribunal,
while calculating the loss of future income, rightly considered the
disability suffered by the injured. Accordingly, I am not inclined to
interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal on this ground.
29. Compensation on account of loss of future income of the injured
is Rs.9,21,600/-(12,000 x12x16x40%) and Loss of income on account
of leave is Rs.72,000/- (12,000x6).
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 9 of 10
30. In view of the above discussion, the compensation for the loss of
future income is thus enhanced from Rs.4,64,371 to Rs.9,21,600/-, and
compensation for the loss of income during treatment is enhanced from
Rs.12,432/- to Rs.72,000/-, which comes to Rs.5,16,797 (Rs.4,57,229
+ Rs.59,568) shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of disposal of the instant appeal.
31. Consequently, respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed
to make the deposit of the aforesaid enhanced compensation within six
weeks with the Registrar General of this Court, failing which Insurance
Company would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum on
delayed payment.
32. On deposit, the enhanced compensation amount shall be released
in favour of the appellant.
33. Appeal is allowed on the above terms.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MAY 29, 2013
Jg
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 10 of 10
+ MAC.A. 659/2006
th
% Judgment reserved on: 15 May, 2013
th
Judgment delivered on: 29 May, 2013
S.K. CHAUHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anil Aggarwal and Mr. Puneet
Aggarwal, Advs.
versus
RAHIS AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgement dated 28.04.2006, whereby Ld. Tribunal has granted
compensation for a sum of Rs.7,60,865/- with interest @ 6% per
annum.
2. Vide the instant appeal appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount on the ground that due the accident in question
appellant’s right arm got amputated and his right leg was fractured and
was kept in a Cast. Brace-fitting was done for three months. His Fiat
car was also totally damaged in the accident.
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 1 of 10
3. In support of the claim, the appellant examined himself as PW2
wherein he stated that when he reached Village-Baheri on Roorkee
Road, a Canter bearing registration no. UP-02-6524 (hereinafter called
the offending vehicle) which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner came from the opposite side and collided with his car. Due to
the impact, petitioner’s car overturned and all the occupants sustained
injuries. They were taken to M.G. Hospital at Hardwar by the officials
of PS-Jawalapur. Thereafter, he was shifted to St. Stephens Hospital,
Delhi on the next day.
4. Appellant further deposed that he remained admitted in St.
Stephens Hospital, Delhi from 03.04.1999 to 27.04.1999. He testified
that he was the Director of M/s. Compact Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd.
and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/-per month. On account of the
accident he could not look after his business for about six months.
Further deposed that he spent a sum of Rs.90,000/- on his medical
treatment and care. The charges of towing his Car to Delhi for
Rs.2,200/- is Ex.PW2/22 and the estimate of its repair was Rs.35,000.
His medical bills are Ex.PW2/2 to Ex.PW2/18. He had to purchase an
artificial limb, receipt of which is Ex.PW2/19. The bills of St. Stephen
Hospitals are Ex.PW2/20 & Ex.PW2/21and his disability certificate is
Ex.PW2/1. The photographs of the accidental car are Ex.PW2/23 to
Ex.PW2/27. The medical report of St. Stephens Hospital, where he
remained admitted from 03.04.1999 to 26.04.1999 is Ex.PW1/1.
5. To prove the salary of the appellant, he has examined PW3 from
his office, who brought the Memorandum and Article of Association
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 2 of 10
Ex.PW3/1 and photocopies of various qualifications of the petitioner
are Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/7.
6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that
the appellant is a Graduate Engineer and he has proved that he was
earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Despite, Ld. Tribunal has
considered the minimum wages Rs.3,108/- per month applicable to
Graduate at the relevant time.
7. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a judgment delivered by this court
in case of Meenu Tognatta & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors. in MAC.No. 238/2012 decided on 20.04.2012, wherein this court
has passed as under:
“In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by Lrs. v.
Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 (5) SCC 667, death
of a young boy, aged 20 years took place in an accident
which happened in the year 1972. The deceased was a
student of B.Sc Ist year (Biology), a compensation of
Rs.1,46,900/- was increased and rounded off to
Rs.1,50,000/-.
In Ramesh Chand Joshi v. New India Assurance
Company MAC APP.212-213/2006 decided on
20.01.2010 this Court took the potential income of a BE
(Bio-Technology) First year student of Delhi College of
Engineer (DCE) Rs.38,333/- per month.
The gross salary of a Group „A‟ officer in the Central
and the State Govt. on the date of the accident i.e.
19.11.2004 on the basic pay of Rs.8,000/- was
Rs.17,980/- per month. If a qualified degree holder
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 3 of 10
Engineer joined a Govt. service in the year 2004, he
would get a salary of Rs.8,000/- plus all allowances. The
placements in Private Sectors were on a much higher
salary.
The loss of dependency which works out in the case of
deceased Disha thus comes to Rs.22,68,000/- (18,000/- +
50% x 1/2 x 12 x 14).”
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the above cited
cases, claimants were second year students of Engineering, whereas
the appellant is a qualified Engineer, therefore, Ld. Tribunal has
wrongly considered the minimum wages applicable to Graduates. In
above cited case, Ld. Tribunal has considered the monthly income of
the deceased as Rs.18,000/-, however, in the present case, appellant
claimed less salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Ld. Tribunal
failed to consider even the said income.
9. Regarding second issue, Ld. Counsel has argued that there was
amputation of right arm and the appellant was under continuous
treatment for three months as has been proved before the Ld. Tribunal
and due to which, he could not attend his work for about six months.
However, the Ld. Tribunal has considered that he remained out of
work for a period of four months only and accordingly granted a sum
of Rs.12,432/- towards of loss of income, which is on a very lower
side.
10. Regarding third issue, counsel for the appellant has argued that
Ld. Tribunal, while granting compensation on disability, has wrongly
considered 40% disability as per Ex.PW2/1. Ld. Counsel submitted
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 4 of 10
that in Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 amputation below
shoulder with stump less than 20.32 cms from tip of acromion, 80% is
considered and even loss of hand or of the thumb and four fingers of
one hand if amputated are being considered 60% disability.
11. Ld. Counsel submitted that as per the disability certificate, the
disability has been assessed more than 40% and that could be 80% or
60% or more even 100%. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has wrongly
considered the functional disability as 40%.
12. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the issue regarding salary
certificate and academic qualification of the appellant / claimant which
was proved by PW3 Jagdip Jatta, National Sales Man of Compact
Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd. and no suggestion was put to the said
witness by the Insurance Company. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has
considered those documents as proof. Even otherwise, the Insurance
Company has not produced any witness contrary to the proof produced
by the appellant.
13. To sum up his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the salary of the appellant has been considered on a very
lower side. His disability has been wrongly considered as 40% and his
loss of income of four months has been considered, whereas he could
not resume his work for six months. Hence, the appellant is seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
insurance company submitted that the appellant examined himself
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 5 of 10
before the Ld. Tribunal and during cross-examination he stated as
under:
“I have not brought any document pertaining to my
working as Director, Compact Diagnosis. I have also
not brought any document in support of my earnings. It
is wrong to suggest that I was not earning Rs.12,000/-
per month. I have not filed any document pertaining to
my qualification. It is wrong to suggest that I did not
spend Rs.90,000/- on my treatment. I have no
documentary evidence as regards money spent by me on
my car. My car was not comprehensive insured. I do not
have the policy of my car‟s insurance. I do not have any
documentary record to show that I remained away from
work for six months.”
15. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the absence of any stringent proof
of his claim, Ld. Tribunal has rightly considered the minimum wages
applicable to a graduate and whatever medical bills were produced,
each and every bill was considered and accordingly a compensation for
a sum of Rs.44,012/- was granted.
16. Further submitted that for loss of income, Ld. Tribunal granted
Rs.12,432/- and for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities of
life Rs.1,00,000/- was granted. Even for loss of future prospects, Ld.
Tribunal has granted Rs.4,64,371/- and for damage towards the
appellant’s car a sum of Rs.20,000/- was granted.
17. As far as the disability is concerned, Ld. Counsel submitted that
appellant has relied upon a Schedule of Workmen’s Compensation
Act, however, no relief can be granted under this Act, if the petition
has been filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 6 of 10
cannot choose one relief under the Motor Vehicles Act and other under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has
rightly considered the disability as 40% because in the said disability
certificate it is only stated that he received more than 40% permanent
disability and is entitled to get all benefits as per the Govt. Rules.
18. Regarding the medical bill, Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld.
Tribunal has considered each and every bill of the medical expenses
incurred by the appellant during his treatment and post-treatment.
Therefore, no enhancement can be considered in the absence of any
proof of the treatment received by the appellant.
19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
20. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anrs. 2011 ACJ 1 , the
Supreme Court held as under:-
“ The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act'
for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair,
reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal
shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude
from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability
and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only
to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to
lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 7 of 10
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned.”
21. In the instant case, injured/appellant was aged between 35 to 40
years at the time of accident. He was a qualified Graduate Engineer
and enjoying good health. Ex. PW3/1 shows that the injured was
working as Director at the time of the accident.
22. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T.A. Nicholas & Ors. 2010
ACJ 1289, the injured was student of B.E. Computer Science (Final
Year). Ld Tribunal while calculating the loss of future income
considered income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Same was upheld by the
Appellate Court (High Court of Madras).
23. In case of Divisional Manager and the New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Mr. T.Chelladurai, Tmt. D. Maragadam & C.
Nivitha Varadhalakshmi (Madurai Bench) , 2010 ACJ 382 , deceased
was a student of final year Automobile Engineering Course. Tribunal
considered the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month. Same was enhanced
by the High Court of Tamil Nadu to Rs.7,000/- per month.
24. In the instant case, learned Tribunal took the minimum wages
applicable to Graduate at the time of the accident, i.e., Rs.3,108/-.
Since the injured was a Graduate Engineer and Director in one
company, considering the above referred judgments, age, date of
accident, exposure and health of the injured, I hold the income of the
injured at Rs.12,000/- per month as claimed.
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 8 of 10
25. On the second issue, due to the accident, appellant’s right leg
was amputated, his right leg was fractured and was kept in cast.
Appellant was under continuous treatment for three months, same was
proved before the learned Tribunal, due to which he could not resume
his work for about six months, I accordingly, award loss of income for
six months.
26. On the issue of disability, injured produced a disability
certificate Ex.PW2/1 before the learned Tribunal. As per the same,
injured suffered more than 40% permanent disability. Accordingly,
the learned Tribunal, while calculating the loss of future income on
account of disability considered permanent disability of 40%.
27. Since the claim petition filed before the learned Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal, appellant cannot seek benefit of disability as per
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Principles for fixing
compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923 are altogether different.
28. So, on the issue of disability, I found that the learned Tribunal,
while calculating the loss of future income, rightly considered the
disability suffered by the injured. Accordingly, I am not inclined to
interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal on this ground.
29. Compensation on account of loss of future income of the injured
is Rs.9,21,600/-(12,000 x12x16x40%) and Loss of income on account
of leave is Rs.72,000/- (12,000x6).
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 9 of 10
30. In view of the above discussion, the compensation for the loss of
future income is thus enhanced from Rs.4,64,371 to Rs.9,21,600/-, and
compensation for the loss of income during treatment is enhanced from
Rs.12,432/- to Rs.72,000/-, which comes to Rs.5,16,797 (Rs.4,57,229
+ Rs.59,568) shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of disposal of the instant appeal.
31. Consequently, respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed
to make the deposit of the aforesaid enhanced compensation within six
weeks with the Registrar General of this Court, failing which Insurance
Company would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum on
delayed payment.
32. On deposit, the enhanced compensation amount shall be released
in favour of the appellant.
33. Appeal is allowed on the above terms.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MAY 29, 2013
Jg
MAC.A. 659/2006 Page 10 of 10