SH SHAHID v. SH SATISH & ORS

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awardedon 7th January 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) in MAC Petition No.213/2012. The compensation wasawarded at Rs.1,04,069/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counselappearingon behalfof appellantcontends that no loss of future income was awarded,despite 40% permanentdisability being assessed.

3. The accident had occurred on 25th March 2012 near Delhi University MAC.APP. 703/2013 2 of 5 Metro Station due to rash and negligent driving of truck driven by respondentno.1. Thepetitioner was a helper travellingin thesaid truck, who suffered injuries and was taken to hospital. An FIR was lodged and MLC was prepared.

4. Regarding Issue No.1, the MACT held that the claimant/appellant herein suffered injuries due to therash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, basingtheir findingon the FIR and theMechanicalInspection Report. While compensation on account of medical expenses, special diet and conveyance, loss of income and pain and suffering was awarded at Rs.1,04,069/-, no amount was awarded towards loss of future income. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker at Rs.6,656/- per month has been taken as a benchmarkincomeand loss of income for only three months had been awarded at Rs.19,968/-.

5. Mr. Parashar pointsout to thecertificatedated 3rd April 2013 issued by the OrthopaedicSurgeonat Meerut, U.P., which assessed the disability as 40%. He further refers to another certificate dated 7th September 2012 issued by Office of Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital, which statesthatit is a temporary disability of 43% in relation to left lower limb.

6. Further, he relies on the statement of Dr. R.P. Singhal, Senior Consultant/ Orthopaedic Surgeon at District Hospital, Meerut, U.P. recorded before this Court on 3rd November 2014. A perusal of the said statement would bear out that Dr. R.P. Singhal confirmed the certificate issued by their office. However, he also stated that it was a certificate for physically handicapped,issued after physically examiningtheapplicant and after assessinghis musclepower and movement of the joints. Importantly, MAC.APP. 703/2013 3 of 5 he stated that the physically handicapped certificate is not valid in motor accident claim cases. The certificates valid in motor accident claims are issued separately by theOffice of Chief Medical Officer, wherein a detailed medical examination is conducted.

7. Dr. R.P. Singhal statedthatappellant was not treated by him and he had no personalknowledgeabouttheinjuries. He, further, statedthathe had examined appellant for the purpose of issuing the certificate of physically handicapped, but did not notice any injury on the body. He further stated that in the interregnum between the issue of certificate by the Senior Orthopaedic Consultant and the Office of Chief Medical Officer, the percentageof disabilitymay reduceby undergoingsomesurgical procedure or by doing physiotherapy.

8. Mr. Parashar points out to the statement of Dr. R.P. Singhal to profess that there was functional disability which ought to have been accounted for to compute loss of future income. The relevant part of statement of Dr. Singhal is extracted hereunder: “Mr. Shahid will have problem in movement while undertaking any physical work. Mr. Shahid, with his present physical disability, can or cannot work as a helper in a truck. However, his output or work performancewill be much less than the performance of the normal person.”

9. Ms. Suman Bagga, counselfor InsuranceCompany states that there is no crystallizationofthe actualdisabilitywhich theclaimant suffered and the statement of Dr. R.P. Singhal would also show thattherecan be a reduction in the disability and impediment which was originally caused. MAC.APP. 703/2013 4 of 5

10. In thesecircumstances, theCourtis of the opinionthat basis statement of Dr. R.P. Singhal, therewas certainly a reduction in working capacity of Mr. Shahid, consideringhewas workingas a helper in the truck and he was probably doing other miscellaneous jobs which involved some movement and mobility.

11. Considering there was a reduction in the mobility approximated around40%, some functional disability ought to have been considered by theMACT. The only medical evidence on record seems to suggest that he had a fracture in the left ankle joint and, therefore, suffered temporary physical impairment of 43%, as per the certificate issued by Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Hindu Rao Hospital on 7th September 2012.

12. Therefore, theCourtis inclined to awarda lumpsum amount towards theloss of future income, takinginto account 20% disabilityand 40% future prospects andmultiplierof 14 as the injured was of 41 years at the date of theaccident. This would be aligned with parameters prescribed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The amount is recomputed as:

1. Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 101/- Rs. 101/-

2. Expenditure of conveyance and special diet (B) Rs. 9,000/- Rs.9,000/-

3. Income of injured per month