MAC.APP.No.1028/2006 Page 1 of 8

55 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

MAC.APP.No. 1028/2006

Date of Decision: 22^nd March, 2010

%

BIMLA

..... Appellant

Through Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.

versus

GOPAL & ORS ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,

Adv. for R-3.

CORAM :-

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.

Whether Reporters of Local papers may

YES

be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

YES

3. Whether the judgment should be

YES

reported in the Digest?

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.8,21,606/- has been

awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement

of the award amount.

2. The accident dated 18^th October, 2003 resulted in

grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant was sitting

on the pillion of motor cycle No.DL-4S-AG-5822 being driven

by her husband on Outer Ring Road near Jaipur Golden

Hospital red light when the motor cycle was hit by Tata

Tempo bearing No.DL-1L-E-2847, due to which the appellant

2010:DHC:1702

MAC.APP.No.1028/2006 Page 2 of 8

and her husband fell down on the road. The appellant

suffered following injuries:-

(a)

Close fracture soft libia, middle 1/3^rd (Left),

(b)

Fracture L-1, with Neurological deficit,

(c)

Sup. Abrassions back right side lumber region left

flank,

(d)

Contusion Right thigh (S.T. injury),

(e)

Interlocking nailing tibia left leg done,

(f)

Profusely bleeding.

3. The permanent disability of the appellant has been

assessed as 79% by the Medical Board in respect of lower

limbs. The appellant has suffered spinal injury resulting into

less power in lower limb and non-control of the bladder

known as paraparesis with bladder involvement and there

are no chances for its improvement or cure.

4. The appellant was 33 years old at the time of the

accident and was working as a Nurse in a private hospital

and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal

deducted 1/3^rd towards her personal expenses and applied

the multiplier of 17 to compute the compensation for loss of

earning capacity as Rs.5,44,000/-. The Claims Tribunal

awarded

Rs.94,606/-

towards

medical

expenditure,

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs. 70,000/-

towards pain and suffering, Rs.12,000/- towards special diet,

Rs.15,000/- towards fractured left leg tibia, Rs.12,000/- for

attendant and Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income. The total

2010:DHC:1702

MAC.APP.No.1028/2006 Page 3 of 8

compensation awarded is Rs.8,21,606/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the

following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i)

The deduction towards personal expenses be set

aside.

(ii)

The future prospects of the appellant be taken

into consideration.

(iii) The compensation for pain and suffering and loss

of amenities of life be enhanced.

(iv)

The compensation for conveyance be enhanced.

(v)

The rate of interest be enhanced from 6% to 7.5%

per annum

6. The Claims Tribunal has not taken the future prospects

of the appellant taken into consideration while computing the

loss of income. The Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd

towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It is well

settled by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case ofSarla

Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) Scale

129, that 50% of the salary is to be added towards future

prospects as the injured was below 40 years of age.

Following the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), the

income of the deceased for computation of compensation is

taken to