SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Deepak – Appellant
Versus
Satya & Ors. - Respondents
Mac.APP. 131 of 2022
Decided on : 13-11-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : appearance not given
For the Respondent:Mr. Danish Aftab Chowdhury and Mr. Suhail Malik, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that permanent disability preventing employment should be assessed as 100% functional disability, impacting compensation calculations.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal for enhancement of compensation - The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 31,03,151/- with interest @ 9% p.a. - Claimant argued for higher income assessment based on testimony and minimum wages - Tribunal's assessment of disability and future earnings challenged - Court found error in disability assessment, ruling it should be 100% functional disability - Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 42,88,628/- with interest. (Paras 1, 20, 24)

JUDGMENT :

1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“M.V.Act” hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Claimant, who has sought enhancement of compensation, which has been granted in the sum of Rs. 31,03,151/- along with the interest @ 9% p.a.

2. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company, submits that the Insurance Company is willing for a settlement, however, learned counsel for the Claimant has no intimation for settlement and seeks adjudication on merits.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Claimants has sought enhancement of compensation on the ground that the income of the injured should have been taken to be Rs.15,000/- or at least Rs.10,374/- per month, which was the prevailing minimum wages for a matriculate, in the light of the testimony of PW-4, Mr. Jugnu Dhawan who had deposed that his workshop used to remain open for all the seven days in a week. The injured was working as a car mechanic and was getting Rs.500/- per day, which comes to Rs.15,000/- per month. Moreover, the provisional Matriculation Certificate, Ex.PW-1/4 of the injured, has also been proved.

4. The second ground of challenge is that the Petitioner has suffered 60% of Physical and Neurological Disability, which is permanent. In view of the testimony of PW-3, Dr. L.N. Gupta, the Functional Disability should have been assessed as 100% and not 60% , as has been taken by the learned Tribunal.

5. Submissions heard.

6. Briefly stated, on 09.07.2014 at about 10:30 pm, the Appellant/injurned was driving his scooty bearing registration No. DL-13S-TC-0097 with his friend, Mr. Gajender Pal Singh on pillion seat. As their scooty just passed below the Railway Bridge on Bhairo Marg diverting towards Sarail Kale Khan, his scooty was hit from behind by offending bearing Car HR-55S-4948, which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1, Mr. Satya, at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. He as well as his friend suffered injuries and were taken to RML Hospital in the PCR. FIR No. 242/14 under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) was registered at Police Station Tilak Marg, in regard to the accident. Two detailed Accident Reports (DARs) bearing numbers D-438/14 and D-439/14 were filed in respect of the Appellant and his friend, Mr. Mr. Gajender Pal Singh respectively.

7. The learned Tribunal considered the grant of compensation under various heads and granted a total compensation of Rs.47,71,200/- along with the interest @9% p.a., from the date of filing of DARs till the deposit of the amount, within 30 days.

8. The first main grievance of the Claimants, is that PW-4, Mr. Jugnu Dhawan had deposed that the injured was working with him as a car mechanic and was getting a salary of Rs.500/- per day which comes to Rs.15,000/- per month. In the alternative, the provisional Matriculation Certificate, Ex.PW1/4, has been proved according to which the minimum wages for matriculate is Rs.10,374/-. The learned Tribunal thus, fell in error in taking the salary of the injured as Rs.9,802/- per month for a non-matriculate.

9. The Appellant/Claimant in his testimony as PW-1, had deposed that he was working as an electrician in two shops of car Accessories, namely M/s Kar Kool, Exclusive Range of Car Accessories at 12-13, R.K. Ashram Marg, new Delhii and M/s Car Aids, 5-7, R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month.

10. To substantiate his Claim, he examined PW-4, Mr. Jugnu Dhawan, who was the proprietor of M/s Kar Kool and who deposed that his father is a proprietor of othe other shop in the name of M/s Car Aids. He corroborated the testimony of the Plaintiff and deposed that he was getting a payment of Rs.500/- per day.

11. However, the learned Tribunal disbelieved his testimony by observing that no documents showing the involvement or the earnings of the Appellant or that the Appellant was qualified to work as an electrician or has undergone specialized training in this

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top