Full Text
Translation output
A-31
% 30.08.2011
Present; Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for the respondent
No. 3.
+MAC Appeal No. 93/2010
*
This appeal has impugned the Award dated 18.11.2009 vide which a total compensation of Rs. 67,000/- had been awarded in favour of the claimant/injured. The petitioner had suffered a road accident dated 23.03.2007; he had suffered injuries; his contention is that he had produced a medical certificate certifying his permanent disability which had been proved before the Tribunal as
Ex. P3; it had not been considered by the Tribunal primarily for the reason that the original of the said document had not been produced; only photocopy thereof had been produced; this document has been perused; it shows a permanent disability qua the victim, namely, Mahesh Kr. Verma; document is dated
25,02.2008; it specifies that the victim is a permanent handicapped person; disability has been quantified at 25%; the injuries are on the left foot and heel; the injured was working in a factory; his minimum wages have been taken into account to assess his income.
In terms of Ex.P3, since the permanent disability noted at
25%; this is qua the injuries suffered on the particular part of the
2011:DHC:14950
% 30.08.2011
Present; Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for the respondent
No. 3.
+MAC Appeal No. 93/2010
*
This appeal has impugned the Award dated 18.11.2009 vide which a total compensation of Rs. 67,000/- had been awarded in favour of the claimant/injured. The petitioner had suffered a road accident dated 23.03.2007; he had suffered injuries; his contention is that he had produced a medical certificate certifying his permanent disability which had been proved before the Tribunal as
Ex. P3; it had not been considered by the Tribunal primarily for the reason that the original of the said document had not been produced; only photocopy thereof had been produced; this document has been perused; it shows a permanent disability qua the victim, namely, Mahesh Kr. Verma; document is dated
25,02.2008; it specifies that the victim is a permanent handicapped person; disability has been quantified at 25%; the injuries are on the left foot and heel; the injured was working in a factory; his minimum wages have been taken into account to assess his income.
In terms of Ex.P3, since the permanent disability noted at
25%; this is qua the injuries suffered on the particular part of the
2011:DHC:14950
body; the functional disability can safely assumed to be 12%; this figure has been arrived at keeping in view the nature of the injuries suffered by the victim and the nature of the job which was he doing prior to the accident. Keeping in view the case of Rai
Kumar vs. Aiav Kumar reported in 2011 ACT 1 SC. where the
Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines to be followed by the court while assessing a permanent disability qua the victim and how the loss of income has to be arrived at. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforenoted
Kumar vs. Aiav Kumar reported in 2011 ACT 1 SC. where the
Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines to be followed by the court while assessing a permanent disability qua the victim and how the loss of income has to be arrived at. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforenoted
JUDGMENT
which is being consistently followed, the modified Award is accordingly read as follows:-
Rs. 480/- (12% of Rs. 4,000/-) x 12 X 15 = Rs. 86,400/-
An additional amount of Rs. 86,400/- is accordingly awarded to the appellant under the head of "loss of future earnings". No modification is called for in the other heads already awarded in terms of the impugned Award.
Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 30, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:14950
Rs. 480/- (12% of Rs. 4,000/-) x 12 X 15 = Rs. 86,400/-
An additional amount of Rs. 86,400/- is accordingly awarded to the appellant under the head of "loss of future earnings". No modification is called for in the other heads already awarded in terms of the impugned Award.
Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 30, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:14950