$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12^th December, 2024 + MAC.APP. 358/2023 SUMIT KUMAR JHA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bijay Kumar, Advocate.

versus

1 . Uma Shankar S/o Sh. Kalika Singh R/o H.No. D-5, Harswaroop Colony, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi . . . . . . Respondent No.1.

2. Dharam Dev S/o Mukh Ram Sharma, R/o H. No. 208, Bhopa Mohalla, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi . . . . . . Respondent No.2.

03. Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd.

H-78, 7" Floor, 23 Himalaya House, K. G. Marg, New Delhi. . . . . . Respondent No.3.

Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi and Mr.

Vaibhav Verma, Advocates for Insurance company.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of Appellant Sumit Kumar Jha, injured seeking enhancement of compensation granted to him in the sum of Rs.12,39,973/- along with interest @ 7% per annum on account of accident which took place on 17.07.2020.

2. The enhancement of compensation has been sought on the following grounds:-

(i) that the Minimum Wages for unskilled worker has been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA taken which should have been for skilled worker in the sum of Rs.18,563/- as he was a Painter by profession; and (ii) that the Permanent Disability was to the extent of 46%,but considering his nature of Permanent Disability and also that he underwent Hip Replacement, it should have been taken as 46% instead of 23%;

(iii) that the enhanced compensation be given for loss of Income for two years instead of four months, as the treatment continued till 2022;

(iv) that the compensation granted under Non Pecuniary Heads needs to be enhanced; and (v) that the rate of interest needs to be enhanced from 7% to

9% per annum.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has submitted that there is no proof of the injured being a Painter by profession. The learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income as of an unskilled worker. In so far as the compensation under other heads is concerned, the same may be considered in accordance with law.

4. Submissions Heard

5. Briefly stated, on 17.07.2020 at about 5 PM when the injured, Sumit Kumar Jha was near Bandh Road near 3^rd Avenue, a water tanker bearing No.DL-1LT-6897 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, Uma Shankar hit him from the front side because of which he fell and became unconscious. He was shifted to the hospital for treatment where his MLC was prepared. The FIR No.275/2020under Section 279/337 IPC at P.S. Fatehpur Beri, dated 17.07.2020,was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIKAS ARORA registered. After investigation, Chargesheet was filed against the Driver f the offending vehicle.

6. The Detailed Accident Report was filed before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after assessing the evidence granted compensation in the sum of Rs.12,39,973/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

Rate of Wages of the Injured:

7. The first ground on which the enhancement is being sought is that the injured was a Painter by profession and thereby the Minimum Wages should have been taken as per skilled worker.

8. The injured as PW-1, deposed that he was a Painter by profession. The Insurance Company had merely given a suggestion that he was not a Painter by profession. It is a known fact that the Petitioner belonged to an unorganised Sector and it is unlikely that there would be any documentary proof of he being a Painter. To require from him to produce any documentary evidence, may not be feasible. The Insurance Company on the other hand, has not led any evidence to rebut that he was not a Painter by profession nor has it done any confirmation of the profession of the injured. Considering the evidence produced by the Appellant, there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony and he is held to be a skilled worker being a Painter by profession. The Minimum Wages are revised from that of an unskilled work