IMPORTANT POINT
The assessment of compensation in road accident cases involves considerations such as earning capacity, functional disability, age, and compensation for prosthetic limbs, based on established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment by MACT, Delhi dated 16th September, 2014, in Suit No. 176/2013. The Ld. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 14, 07,127/- to the claimant.

2. Brief facts are that on 11th August 2013, Sh. Jayveer Singh and Sh. Rizwan were standing near the rehri of Sh. Jayveer and suddenly a car bearing No. UP 14DT 4402 driven by respondent No.1 hit the appellant. It was alleged that the said car was being driven rashly, negligently and at high speed. Both the persons fell and suffered injuries. Two separate petitions were filed claiming compensation viz, M.A.C. Petition No. 176/2013 by Jayveer Singh (the appellant in this matter) and DAR No. 379/2013 (by Sh. Rizwan). The appellant/claimant stated that he had suffered guillotine amputation, fracture on both bones of right leg, injury over ankle, head injury besides other injuries. It was stated that he was 47 years of age and was a fruit vendor and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Other claims were also made relating to his treatment, cost of conveyance, expenses for special diet and of an attendant.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 11.08.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-14DT-4402 being driven by respondent No. 1? (OPP)

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)

3. Relief.

4. Both the cases of the appellant herein and Sh. Rizwan were consolidated for recording common evidence. However, references made in this judgment relate only to the appellant herein.

5. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the appellant, considering the evidence of appellant (PW-1) and the doctor (PW-2) as well as the FIR, MLC, Site Plan, and Mechanical Inspection Report. As per the Ld. MACT, there was nothing on record to dispel the influence that injuries had been sustained by them in a road accident on that day because of the negligence of the driver of the said vehicle.

6. As regards issue No.2, appellant's evidence of PW-1 was noted where he stated that he was admitted in GTB hospital 11th August, 2013, discharged on 18th August, 2013, and had incurred Rs. 1 lac. He further stated that was a fruit vendor, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, and incurred Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance. Rs. 15,000/- on special diet and Rs. 4,000/- on an attendant. The appellant produced the discharge summary, medical papers, bills, copy of the ration card, detailed accident report and disability certificate.

7. Dr. R. Mukund, Sr. Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, GTB, Hospital, Delhi was examined as PW-2. He stated that he was a member of the disability board and the disability certificate, Ex. PW-1/5 was issued from their hospital. As per him, the appellant suffered 82% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs below the knee in the accident and was operated on 13th August, 2013. As per PW-2, it was the case of amputation of left lower limb below knee, both bone fractures of right lower limb, fracture of calcaneum and cuboid on right foot. The patient could walk without the help of crutches but, to do so, would need artificial limb for the left leg. Further, an injury on calcaneum would restrict the movement of the right ankle. PW-2 stated that the appellant had suffered permanent disability and there was no likelihood of improvement in his condition. 8. In deciding the issue of compensation, Ld. MACT assessed the evidence, facts and circumstances as under:

i. As regards the earning of the appellant, it is stated that there was no material on record to show the avocation and earning of the petitioner as a fruit vendor and therefore used the benchmark of minimum wages of unskilled workmen, as prevailing in NCT of Delhi, which was Rs. 7,725/-(approx.) per month.

ii.