IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grievous injuries suffered in motor accident – Taking notional income is not the correct approach to award compensation – Instead, minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in concerned State has to be taken into consideration.
(2) Marriage/companionship is an integral part of natural life of a human being.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal calls into question the correctness and validity of the final judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 7th November 2017 in MAC. APP. 1107/2011.

3. The appellant had approached the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded on account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) had by a judgment and order dated 13th June 2011 awarded compensation of Rs. 5,90,750/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide impugned judgment and order, disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant seeking enhancement by granting a further amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

4.1 On 2nd June, 2009, the appellant, aged seven years, was going on foot along with her mother and brother to her house from National Bal Bhawan, Kotla Road, New Delhi. At about 01:00 PM, when they reached a red light on Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg and Vishnu Digambar Marg, ITO, Delhi, and were crossing the road on a zebra crossing, a car bearing Registration No. DL-3C-AX-1502 being driven at a high speed, hit the appellant, as a result of which, she sustained grievous injuries.

4.2 On 3rd September 2009, the appellant, through her father, filed a claim petition for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”), before the learned Tribunal against the driver-cum- owner of the offending vehicle and United India Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi arrayed as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

4.3 The learned Tribunal framed three issues for its consideration. First, whether the appellant had suffered grievous injuries on account of the road accident on 2nd June 2009, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle by Respondent No. 1. Second, whether the appellant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom. Third, as to what relief should be granted to the appellant.

4.4 The appellant got examined five witnesses in support of her claim. Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte and Respondent No. 2 did not lead any evidence.

4.5 The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, decided the first two issues in favour of the appellant. The learned Tribunal held the respondents jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the appellant.

4.6 The appellant was awarded the following compensation:

4.7 Vide judgment and order dated 13th June 2011, the learned Tribunal, therefore, held that the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,90,750/-. The appellant was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 3rd September 2009.

4.8 Seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant approached the High Court.

4.9 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, on appreciation of the material placed on record, enhanced the compensation as follows (in bold):