Full Text
JUDGMENT
AJEET SINGH @ JEET SINGH ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
Represented by: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 20.04.2011 whereby Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation as under: “NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
1. Towards special diet: Rs.10,000/-
2. Towards conveyance allowance: Rs.10,000/-
3. Towards mental pain, agony, loss of amenities of life, happiness, frustration towards disfigurement and enjoyment of life: Rs.2,00,000/-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
1. Towards functional disability: Rs.2,15,804/-
2. Towards medical expenses: Rs.8673/-
3. Towards not being able to do his Duties for 6 months: Rs.23,508/- TOTAL: Rs.4,67,985/-” 2014:DHC:1116
2. Vide this appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation amount as noted above.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that at the time of accident, appellant was 30 years of age and received 53% disability. However, Ld. Tribunal has not added any amount on the income of the appellant towards future prospects.
4. To strengthen his argument, ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a case of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563, wherein it is held as under:
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company submits that since the appellant could not prove that he was in permanent employment, therefore, Ld. Tribunal has rightly not added any amount towards future prospects and relied upon a case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 12 1which has been further affirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65.
6. The issue of future prospects has been dealt by this court in the case bearing MAC. APP. No.846/2011 titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. wherein while relying upon the dictum of Rajesh & Ors. (Supra) it is held that the future prospects can be granted up to 50%, keeping in view the age of the deceased.
7. Admittedly, in the present case, appellant was 30 years of age at the time of accident. Therefore, I add 50% in his actual income towards future prospects.
8. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:- Sr. No. Heads Calculation as per MACT Calculation as per this Court i. Towards functional disability Rs.2,15,804/- Rs.3,23,705/ii. Towards not being able to do his duties for six months Rs.23,508/- Rs.23,508/iii. Towards medical expenses Rs.8,673/- Rs.8,673/iv. Towards special diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/v. Towards conveyance allowance Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/vi. Towards mental pain, agony, loss of amenities of life, happiness, frustration towards disfigurement and enjoyment of life Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- TOTAL Rs.4,67,985/- Rs.5,75,886/- Resultantly, the compensation is assessed as Rs.5,75,886/-.
9. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,07,901 is enhanced (Rs.5,75,886 – Rs.4,67,985).
10. The enhanced compensation shall also carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
11. The respondent /Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, appellant/claimant shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
12. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in favour of the appellant/claimant in terms of the impugned award dated 20.04.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by him.
13. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J. FEBRUARY 28, 2014/Jg/RS