Full Text
MAC.APP.No.538/2008
Date of Decision: 8th February, 2010 VINOD KR.GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Manish Mannie, Adv.
Through : Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for R-3.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- has been awarded to him. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 14th July, 2005 resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant is a practicing lawyer and he was crossing the road in front of Tis Hazari Courts to go towards Boulevard Road when a Santro Car bearing No.DL-1CH-2236 hit him due to which the appellant fell down and suffered following injuries:-
(i) Fracture Medial Malleolus (L)
(iii) Pott’s Fractures (left leg) treated with fixation of two cancellous screws.
(iv) Mal United/Mal-alignment of ankle joint (left)
(v) Profusely bleeding.
(vi) Multiple abrasions and blunt injuries all over body.
3. The appellant was removed to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where plaster was put on his left leg. The appellant thereafter took the treatment from Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital where he was advised for close reduction and POP cast. The appellant remained admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital for two days. The appellant was advised for a operation for open reduction and internal fixation of two screws in left ankle. The appellant also consulted Aggarwal Dharmarth Hospital and Dr. S.P. Mandal from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital who confirmed the above advice. The appellant underwent operation on 26th July, 2005 for fixation of two cancellous screws at Aggarwal Dharmarth Hospital where he remained admitted till 28th July, 2005. The plaster was removed on 3rd October, 2005. The appellant continued the treatment and the screws were removed on 14th April, 2007. There has been mal-alignment of ankle joint and the appellant has suffered permanent disability which has been assessed to be 65% in respect of the left lower limb.
4. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards pain and agony, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment and Rs.90,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. The total compensation awarded is Rs.2,35,000/-.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) The loss of income and loss of earning capacity be enhanced.
(ii) The compensation for pain and suffering be enhanced.
(iii) The compensation be awarded for loss of amenities of life.
(iv) The compensation be awarded for disfiguration.
6. With respect to the compensation for loss of income and earning capacity, the appellant appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and proved that the appellant was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has taken his income to be Rs.5,000/- per month without any basis. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the appellant has not filed any documentary proof or Income Tax Return to prove the income of Rs.8,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a practicing lawyer having 20 years experience but since the appellant’s income was below taxable limits, no Income Tax Return was being filed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the income of the appellant is taken to be Rs.8,000/per month.
7. The appellant was aged 58 years at the time of the accident and the appropriate multiplier at the age of 58 years is 9 whereas the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 5. The multiplier is, therefore, enhanced from 5 to 9. Taking the income of the appellant to be Rs.8,000/- per month, applying the multiplier of 9 and taking the loss of earning capacity to be 30%, the compensation for loss of earning capacity is enhanced from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.2,59,200/- [(Rs.8,000 x 12 x 9) x 30%]. The loss of income during treatment is enhanced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 12).
8. The appellant has suffered 65% permanent disability in respect of which the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and agony, which is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.
9. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of amenities of life as well as disfiguration. Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities of life and Rs.50,000/- towards disfiguration.
10. The appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.5,50,200/- (Rs.2,59,200 + Rs.30,000 + Rs.10,000 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.50,000 + Rs.96,000 + Rs.50,000 + Rs.50,000)
11. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced from Rs.2,35,000/- to Rs.5,50,200/- along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
12. The enhanced award amount along with interest be deposited by respondent No.3 with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch A/c Vinod Kumar Gupta through Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) within 30 days.
13. Upon the receipt of the aforesaid amount, UCO Bank is directed to release 50% of the amount to the appellant by transferring the same to his Saving Bank Account. The remaining 50% amount be kept in fixed deposit for one year with cumulative interest.
14. The appellant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
15. Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for both the parties under signature of Court Master.
16. Copy of this order be also sent to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) through the UCO Bank, High Court Branch under the signature of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 08, 2010 aj