NANAK CHAND @ ROHIT v. VINOD KUMAR & OTHERS

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) CM No. 16095/2011 (delay) in MAC APPEAL No. 777/2011 In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 97 days is condoned in filing the appeal. Application is disposed of.

MAC APPEAL No. 777/2011

1 Award impugned before this court is the Award dated 27.01.2011 vide which a token compensation in the sum of 2011:DHC:4404 Rs.2,24,546/- had been awarded to the claimant. The claimant was the father of a 13 year old child who had suffered an accident on 20.05.2005. Disability certificate produced in evidence was proved as Ex.PX; the injured had suffered a disability to the extent of 90% with respect to the left upper limb; the court had rightly noted that since the disability with respect to one hand which is on the left side; the total disability i.e. functional disability of the victim was computed at 50% of 90% i.e. 45%. There is no dispute that since the victim was 13 year old child his notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum had to be taken into account and correct multiplier of 15 had been applied. This amount equalized to Rs. 2,25,000/-; 45% of the same had been awarded as loss of future income i.e. Rs. 1,01,250/-; this calculation on no ground suffers from any infirmity. Special amount had also been awarded under the non-pecuniary head i.e. Rs. 50,000/- under the head of “mental pain and agony” and another Rs. 50,000 towards physical disfigurement and loss of amenities of life”; the victim had remained in hospital for 20 days as per his own statement; Rs. 10,000/- as special diet; Rs. 10,000/- as conveyance charges; as also medical expense of Rs. 3,296/-which was in terms of medical bills produced of the government hospital were also the entitlement of the claimant; interest had also been awarded at 8% on this total sum of Rs. 2,24,546/-.

2 Only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that marriage prospect had not been accorded. Victim was a child of 13 years; various amounts awarded under the various heads as referred to above which include “loss of future of income”, “physical disfigurement and loss of amenities to life” are all heads which have already taken care of this submission. No separate amount is required to be awarded under this head; it will only overlap the aforenoted two heads.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 29, 2011 rb