MOHD. TAHIR KHAN Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has assailed the impugned Award dated 08.6.2011 whereby the compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,51,950/- had been awarded to the victim. The appellant is aggrieved by the said amount. His contention is that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Sri Kumaresh Vs. The Dvl. Manager National Insurance Col. Ltd. where also the claim of a manual laborer aged 20 years is involved; compensation almost to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been awarded. Claim of the claimant is also liable to be enhanced on the same ratio.

(2.) Facts emanating from the record show that the claimant Mohd. Sohail while going to work had suffered grievous injuries; this was on 31.10.2007; victim was going on foot when a maruti car hit him from the opposite direction; the victim remained in hospital between 03.10.2007 to 03.12.2007 i.e. almost for a period of two months and thereafter again between 07.01.2009 to 21.2.2009 i.e. for about six weeks thereafter. The permanent disability of the victim was categorized at 71%; this was in terms of the disability certificate Ex.PW-1/3 issued by the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital and exhibited in the version of PW-2 Dr. Ashish Rustagi. The victim had suffered this permanent disability qua his left lower limb. The victim at the relevant time was working as a helper in a chicken shop; his contention was that he is earning Rs. 6000/- per month but in the absence of any documentary proof to substantiate this claim the minimum wages of an unskilled worker calculated at Rs. 3500/- per month were taken as the income of the victim. Keeping in view the nature of his working i.e. being a helper in a chicken shop, permanent disability of 71% which was a grievous injury in the left lower limb; the functional disability qua the whole body had been calculated at 35%. The Tribunal had followed the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 where principles relating to grant of compensation in case of injuries have been detailed. Petitioner at the relevant date was 19 years of age. Keeping in view the fact that the victim had suffered an open grade IIIrd B facture of both bones of left leg i.e. a gap in the left tibia bone, the court had rightly assessed that keeping in view the nature of his job the functional disability of the victim would be about 50% of the permanent disability. Permanent disability qua the left lower leg had been assessed at 71% which was approximated to 35% qua the whole body. In view of the affronted factual scenario this conclusion does not in any manner suffers from any infirmity. The compensation for loss of earning capacity had accordingly been calculated at Rs. 2,64,000/-. This was as per the formula laid down in the case of Raj Kumar . Besides this, compensation for 'pain and suffering' had been awarded at Rs. 65,000/-; compensation for 'loss of amenities, enjoyment' and compensation for 'disfiguration' had been calculated at Rs. 60,000/-; the court had noted that the petitioner would not be able to go for work in the next six months for which compensation had been awarded to the tune of Rs. 21,000/-; medical bills produced by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 6,921/- were also fully re-imbrued. Compensation for 'conveyance and special diet' had been awarded at Rs. 10,000/-; Rs. 21,000/- had been granted as 'loss of marriage prospects'. Interest had been awarded at 7.5% per annum. Before this Court contention is that the interest rate should be awarded at 9% per annum. In view of the judgment of Dharampal Vs. UP State Road Transport, 2008 3 ACC 1 the court had held that interest awarded at 7.5% per annum would be fair and just to meet the ends of justice. This finding qua this interest rate calls for no modification.

(3.) The judgment of Sri Kumaresh was in the facts and circumstances of that particular case. In this case also the permanent disability had been quantified at 70%. The victim being a manual laborer his body disability had been taken at 35%. 'Loss of future earning' had been arrived at the figure of Rs. 4,32,000/- as the income of the deceased had been assessed at Rs. 6000/- per month. Ratio of the said judgment does not in any manner come to the aid of the appellant.