Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
J.R. Midha, J.
RAKESH SIGNH - Appellant
Vs.
DHEERAJ AND ORS (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.) - Respondent
Motor Accidents Claims Appeal No. 413 of 2018
Decided on : 31-07-2019
Kamaldeep, Advocate, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Shuchi Singh, Advocate, Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation in motor accident cases based on specific claims and evidence presented by the appellant.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident - [Motor Accident, Compensation, Permanent Disability] - [Motor Vehicles Act, Section 166] - The court discussed the appellant's claim for enhancement of compensation due to grievous injuries suffered in a motor accident. The court considered various factors such as medical expenditure, loss of earning capacity, future prospects, and cost of artificial limb, and ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs. 22,13,827 to Rs. 30,69,000.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 22,14,000 following a motor accident resulting in grievous injuries and permanent disability. The appellant sought enhancement of the award amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the appellant's claims for various enhancements in compensation, including medical expenditure, conveyance and special diet, cost of attendant, loss of earning, artificial limb, disfiguration, and loss of earning capacity. After considering the appellant's submissions and the report of the Committee, the court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,69,000 and awarded interest on the balance amount.
Issues: The issues involved the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, including specific components such as medical expenditure, loss of earning capacity, and cost of artificial limb, among others.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellant's specific claims for enhancement and evaluated the evidence and submissions to determine the appropriate compensation. The court also relied on the report of the Committee to assess the cost of repair and maintenance of the artificial limb.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation award from Rs. 22,13,827 to Rs. 30,69,000, with interest awarded on the balance amount. Respondent No.3 was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, and the appellant was instructed to provide necessary documentation for disbursement of the compensation.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
J.R. Midha, J.
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 22, 14, 000/- has been awarded to him. The appellant is seeking enhancement of the award amount.
2. On 02nd July, 2017 at about 11:40 A.M., the appellant was returning home after finishing his work when he was hit by vehicle No. UP 77N 8517 near Thakur Hotel, Delhi Darbar Road, Bhajanpura, Delhi. The accident resulted in grievous injuries and his left arm was crushed. The appellant was taken to GTB Hospital where his left arm was amputed due to the injuries suffered. The permanent disability of the appellant was assessed by the Medical Board as 87% relating to left upper limb.
3. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 22, 13, 827/- as per break up given hereunder:-
| (i) | Pain and suffering | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| (ii) | Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| (iii) | Servant/attendant charges | Rs.25,000/- |
| (iv) | Conveyance and special diet | Rs.25,000/- |
| (v) | Loss of wages | Rs.80,100/- |
| (vi) | Future loss of income | Rs.15,37,920/- |
| (vii) | Cost of artificial limb | Rs.3,45,807/- |
|
| Total | Rs.22,13,827/- |
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged following grounds at the time of hearing:-
(i) The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for medical expenditure. The appellant claims for Rs. 50, 000/- towards medical expenditure. It is submitted that the medical bills for the said amount have been lost by the appellant.
(ii) The compensation for expenditure of conveyance and special diet be enhanced from Rs. 25, 000/- to Rs. 50, 000/-
(iii) The expenditure for cost of attendant be enhanced from Rs. 25, 000/- to Rs. 50, 000/-.
(iv) The Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of earning for six months by taking minimum wages of Rs. 13, 350/- in respect of unskilled person whereas the appellant is a skilled mason and, he remained under treatment for eight months and, therefore, the loss of earning be awarded for eight months by taking minimum wages Rs. 16, 182/- in respect of a skilled person.
(v) The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3, 45, 807/- towards artificial limb which has a life of five years and, therefore, the appellant may require replacement every five years. Alternatively, it is submitted that the compensation be awarded for repairs and maintenance of the artificial limb.
(vi) The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards disfiguration. The appellant claims Rs. 1, 00, 000/- towards disfiguration.
(vii) The Claims Tribunal has taken loss of earning capacity as 60%. It is submitted that the loss of earning capacity be taken as 87% as the appellant is unable to do any work due to the amputation of left arm. The minimum wages of Rs. 16, 182/- per month in respect of skilled person be taken into consideration for computation of loss of earning capacity and the future prospects of 40% added for computation of the compensation.
5. Vide order dated 31th July, 2018, this Court directed the Committee appointed by this Court in MAC.APP.1134/2017 to examine the appellant and advise about the life and cost of lifetime warranty of artificial arm taken by the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned amicus curiae in MAC.APP.1134/2017 has submitted the report of the Committee which is taken on record. As per the report of the Committee, the artificial limb would require repair/maintenance of Rs. 40, 000/- after five years.
6. In the present case, the appellant has suffered amputation of left arm which has resulted in 87% permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards disfiguration. The appellant claims for Rs. 1, 00, 000/- towards disfiguration which is fair
