JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J.

1. This petition has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("MV Act") seeking enhancement of compensation in addition to what has been awarded vide impugned judgment and order dated 21st May, 2023 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, MACT-2, (South-West & Airport), Dwarka, New Delhi in case No. 42/DAR/12.

2. The appellant was injured in an accident on 24th August, 2011. At the time of accident, he was standing in a queue for making his UID card when at about 4:30 a.m. the offending car (bearing registration No. DL 5CC 6835) being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner, came at a high speed and hit the appellant and others, who were standing there in the queue. A police case being FIR No.288 dated 24.08.2011 under sections 279/338 IPC was registered at PS Dabri. The offending vehicle was found to be under the ownership of respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.3.

3. As per the claim of the appellant, he was 50 years old at the time of the accident and was working at a stationery shop, earning Rs.8,000/- per month and was the sole bread earner of the family. He sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture of patella bone of the left knee besides other injuries. The appellant was taken to DDU Hospital and remained there from 28.8.2011 till 01.09.2011; he underwent an operation during his hospitalisation and treatment continued with the OPD thereafter.

4. As per the appellant, he has been disabled permanently on account of injuries sustained and as per the medical examination done by the Medical Board of the DDU Hospital, his physical disability has been assessed at 29% on account of stiffness in the left knee.

5. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not file their written statement before the Ld. MACT. Respondent no.3, the insurer, filed its written statement admitting the fact of insurance. Issues were framed relating to fact of the accident and the amount of compensation that the claimant would be entitled to.

6. The appellant was examined as PW-1 being the eyewitness. However, he was not cross examined by respondent no.1, who chose not to lead any evidence.

7. Issue no.1 as regards the factum of the accident being caused by the respondent no.1 on account of his rash and negligent driving was therefore proven in favour of the appellant. As regards issue no.2 of compensation, Ld. MACT relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,12,007/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The components of the same are tabulated as under:

S. No.Component of CompensationAmount awarded1.Pain and Suffering35,000/-2.Cost of treatment3,061/-3.Loss of wages (6,422 x 3 months)19,266/-4.Attendant's charges19,266/-5.Loss of wages in future (multiplier 11 as 50Y)1,22,914/-6.Special Diet7,500/-7.Conveyance charges5,000/-Total2,12,007/-

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed three grounds in their challenge to the impugned award, seeking enhancement:

a. Despite the disability certificate stating 29% disability in relation to left lower limb, the Ld. MACT held that the functional disability qua the entire body of the appellant could not be slated at 29%, and rather was assessed to be at 14.5%. This, as per the appellant's counsel ought to have been atleast assessed at 29%. It was contended that by reducing the disability of the appellant by 50% despite considering the nature of work done by the appellant of working in a shop, was neither justified nor reasonable.

b. Future prospects relating to his loss of earning was not taken into account. Appellant's counsel contended that considering the age of the appellant was 50 years, at least 10% ought to have been considered by the Ld. MACT. The income of the appellant was considered at Rs. 6,422/- per month without any future increase, which was irrational and not logical.

c.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document