The court applied the principles of future prospects and additional compensation for loss of disfigurement and marriage prospects in determining the total compensation amount.

Suresh Kait, J.

CM APPL. No. 16729/2013 (Delay)

In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 293 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

MAC. APP. No. 957/2013

1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 04.09.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:

(Rs. Six lacs six thousand and nineteen only.)

The learned Tribunal has also awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the injured/appellant was a rickshaw puller. On the date of accident he was 23 years old. In the accident in question, he received 40% permanent disability in relation to both the lower limbs. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed 40% functional disability and accordingly granted compensation. He submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to add any amount in his income towards future prospects.

2. To support his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon case of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 wherein the Full Bench of the Apex Court has held as under:-

11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.

12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation towards loss of disfigurement and loss of marriage prospects. He submitted that the injured became disabled at a very young age and suffered disability in both lower limbs due to which the marriage prospects have been ceased, therefore, just and fair compensation may be granted in his favour.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/Insurance Company submits that the appellant received 40% permanent disability in his both lower limbs and learned Tribunal has considered 40% functional disability qua the whole body. He was a rickshaw puller and could not prove his employment, therefore, the learned Tribunal has assessed a sum of Rs. 5,278/- as his monthly income applicable to an unskilled worker at the relevant time as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Hence, the learned Tribunal has not added any amount in his actual income towards future prospects.

5. To support his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has been further affirmed by Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another, delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on 02.04.2013.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company further submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- each for conveyance and special diet and loss of amenities, Rs