Tek Bahadur v. Ram Bharose & Ors.

1. These two Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT-03, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi) (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of ` 12,34,260/was awarded in favour of Tek Bahadur, for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 29.01.2009. 2013:DHC:6474

2. MAC APP.472/2011 has been preferred by Tek Bahadur (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) for enhancement of compensation whereas MAC APP.504/2011 has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited (the Insurance Company) stating that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant.

3. On 29.01.2009 at about 7:15 a.m., while the Claimant was crossing the road of VRC colony and Shankar Vihar, he was hit by a speeding Lancer car bearing No.DL-9CC-5313. The Claimant was initially removed to R.R. Hospital, Delhi Cantt. He was found to have suffered multiple fractures of both bones, left leg with fracture of femur neck. The Claimant remained admitted in R.R. Hospital, Delhi Cantt. till 15.04.2009 where he was operated upon. Thereafter, he was again admitted in Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandi Mandir, Chandigarh for further follow up. The Claimant claimed that he suffered 60% disability on account of the injuries suffered. The Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation under various heads which is extracted hereunder:-

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│          computed as under:-                                                                   │
│            Sl.       Compensation under various        Awarded by          Awarded by          │
│                                heads                   the Claims           this Court         │
│           No.                                           Tribunal                               │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│           1.      Loss of earning capacity               `11,89,260/-          `6,14,970/-     │
│           2.      Loss of Income (for two years)                    --         `4,80,000/-     │
│           3.      Pain & Suffering                         ` 30,000/-           ` 50,000/-     │
│           4.      Loss of amenities/inconvenience                   --          ` 50,000/-     │
│           5.      Special Diet                            ` 10,000/-           ` 10,000/-      │
│           6.      Conveyance Expenses                       ` 5,000/-           ` 10,000/-     │
│           7.      Attendant charges                                 --         ` 10,000/-      │
│                                                Total   ` 12,34,260/- ` 12,24,970/-             │
│ MAC. APP. 472/2011 & 504/2011                                   Page 9 of 10                   │
│                                                                                2013:DHC:6474   │
│ 19.      Thus the compensation of `12,34,260/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is               │
│          just and reasonable and does not call for any interference.                           │
│ 20.      The compensation awarded shall be released in terms of the order passed               │
│          by the Claims Tribunal.                                                               │
│ 21.      Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.                                       │
│ 22.      The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant                 │
│          Insurance Company in MAC APP.504/2011.                                                │
│ 23.      Pending applications also stand disposed of.                                          │
│                                                                     (G.P. MITTAL)              │
│                                                                        JUDGE                   │
│ DECEMBER 17, 2013                                                                              │
│ vk                                                                                             │
│ MAC. APP. 472/2011 & 504/2011                                  Page 10 of 10                   │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

1.[5] cms. There was stiffness in left knee and left ankle. Unfortunately, even the extent of stiffness was not brought on record by the Claimant. As stated earlier, this Court even permitted the Claimant to produce additional evidence in the appeal, but in spite of all this, evidence was not brought in. In the circumstances, this Court will refrain from remanding the case to the Trial Court to make a fresh assessment as to the functional disability.

16. Considering the facts stated above, I would take the functional disability in case of the Claimant to be 30% as after his retirement from military service as a Hawaldar, he could have got an employment as a security supervisor or a similar job either in any security agency or in private sector. The minimum wages of a skilled worker or a Matriculate on the date of the Claimant’s discharge i.e. 01.03.2012 were `9386. Thus, he would be entitled for compensation towards loss of earning capacity by giving him benefit of 30% disability (age being 42 years on the date of discharge). On account of loss of earning capacity the compensation comes to `6,14,970/- (9386/- + 30% x 12 x 14 x 30%).

17. As per the last pay slip placed on record, the Claimant was getting a salary of `16,942/- per month as the time of the accident. At the time of recording of the statement of the Claimant as PW-1 on 27.08.2010, the Claimant was getting a salary of `20,000/- per month. As stated above, the Claimant would be entitled to a sum of `4,80,000/- (`20,000/- x 24) towards loss of income for two years.

18. Since the Claimant’s treatment was in the military hospital, the Claimant admitted that he did not have to spend anything on his treatment. Considering the nature of injuries, period of admission in the hospital and confinement at home, I would further make a provision of `50,000/towards pain and suffering, `50,000/- towards loss of amenities/inconvenience, `10,000/- towards special diet, `10,000/towards attendant charges and `10,000/- towards conveyance charges for himself as well as for the attendant. The overall compensation awarded is computed as under:- Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Awarded by this Court

1. Loss of earning capacity `11,89,260/- `6,14,970/-

2. Loss of Income (for two years) -- `4,80,000/-

3. Pain & Suffering ` 30,000/- ` 50,000/-

4. Loss of amenities/inconvenience -- ` 50,000/-

5. Special Diet ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-

6. Conveyance Expenses ` 5,000/- ` 10,000/-