$~61

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision:21.08.2023

+

MAC.APP. 258/2020

MASTER JATIN @ JATIN BHARDWAJ ..... Appellant

Through:

Mr.Manish Maini, Ms.Yashika

Miglani & Mr.Vibhor Jain,

Advs.

versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv.

with

Mr.Karan

Lahiri,

Ms.Vishakha

Dasgupta

&

Mr.Anubhab Atreya, Advs. for

R-1.

Mr.Shashi Pratap Singh &

Ms.Urvashi, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1.

This appeal challenges the Award dated 12.02.2020

passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (North-

West), Rohini Courts, in MACT No. 436/2017 titled Jatin v.

Karan & Anr.

2.

This Court by its judgment and order dated 08.12.2020,

on the question of the appellant being entitled to compensation

towards attendant charges, had inter alia observed as under:-

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:24.08.2023

19:37:29

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:24.08.2023

19:37:29

Signature Not Verified

claimant.”

3.

Feeling aggrieved of the direction, the respondent no.1

challenged the above judgment before the Supreme Court by

way of Civil Appeal no. 4577/2021. The Supreme Court by its

judgment and order dated 03.08.2021, set aside the directions

contained in paragraph 8 to 10 of the order dated 08.12.2020,

however, at the same time directed as under:-

follow is set out in Kajal's case (supra).”

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:24.08.2023

19:37:29

Signature Not Verified

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish

Chand & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413, the appellant shall be

entitled to compensation taking into account the minimum

wages notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi for a skilled

worker, which is Rs.11,830/-; a minimum of two attendants

would be required; and multiplier of 18 should be adopted. He

submits that, therefore, the total compensation payable to the

petitioner would be Rs.11830x2x18x12=Rs.51,10,560/-, along

with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

5.

On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the

respondent no.1 has drawn my attention to the „format of brief

injury case‟ filed by the appellant with the present appeal,

wherein the appellant has claimed compensation towards „cost

of nursing/attendant‟ as Rs. 29,40,537/- based on only one

unskilled attendant. He also draws my attention to ground I of

the Memo of appeal, which reads as under:-

able to stand or walk independently.”

6.

The learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1

submits that the appellant cannot be granted relief beyond his

pleadings. He submits that, therefore, the appellant is entitled to

compensation towards attendant charges calculated at the

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:24.08.2023

19:37:29

Signature Not Verified

minimum wages notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi

for an unskilled worker, which was Rs.9724/-, and for only one

attendant. He submits that, therefore, the compensation payable

to the appellant would be Rs.9724x1x18x12=Rs.21,00,384/-.

7.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsels for the parties.

8.

As is evident from the extracts of the judgment of the

Supreme Court dated 03.08.2021, the Supreme Court has

remanded the matter to this Court for determining the

appropriate lump sum amount on the basis of the methodology

as set out in Kajal’s case (Supra). The Supreme Court had also

upheld the direction of this Court in paragraph 7 of the order

dated 08.12.2020, that such compensation would be payable for

„two skilled workers‟.

9.

In view of the above, I cannot accept the submission of

the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 that appellant

shall be entitled to compensation only for one attendant and that

too unskilled.

1