RAJESH KUMAR Vs. RAMESH BUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the Award dated 30.10.2009 vide which the learned MACT had awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,78,075 in favour of the injured/petitioner.

(2.) The Award has been impugned by the petitioner on the ground that future prospects having not been considered; the petitioner had remained under treatment for about two years and he could not earn in this intervening period, loss of income for two years should have been granted; the Tribunal has given a paltry amount under the head of 'pain, shock and suffering'; that should be increased; lastly it has been averred that since the petitioner was a labourer, he had suffered 100% disability for the reason that his right foot had been crushed and the MACT considered his disability only at 45% has committed an illegality. These are the grounds of challenge.

(3.) Record shows that in an accident which has occurred on 6.2.2006, the injured who was working as a labourer suffered an injury on his right foot; it was bleeding extensively; he taken to the Sahi Hospital, Jangpura, New Delhi where he remained admitted from 6.2.2006 to 24.2.2006; his foot was operated and dressing on his foot was started; he was again taken to Sahi Hospital where he remained admitted from 13.3.2006 to 30.3.2006 where skin grafting had to be conducted. The petitioner was also remained admitted in Safdarjung Hospital from 11.12.2006 to 16.12.2006 and then again from 26.11.2007 to 17.12.2007 meaning thereby that the petitioner remained in hospital for about 55 days. His permanent disability as per medical record was assessed at 45% by the medical board; this was rightly assessed keeping in view the fact that the right lower ankle had been fractured and then grafted. He was aged 35 years on the date of the accident and was earning about Rs. 5,000 per month. The petitioner has been awarded damages under four heads. Under the non-pecuniary head for 'loss of earning capacity' as sum of Rs. 3,45,000 has been awarded; this formula arrived at strictly in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported as Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 1 SCC 343. The figure of Rs. 4,000 per month had been taken into account and the annual income had been adjudged at Rs. 48,000 per year to which multiplier of 16 in terms of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act was made applicable taking into account the permanent disability of 45%. The sum of Rs. 3,45,000 awarded under this head suffers from no infirmity. Medicines for which bills have been furnished had been taken into account and an amount of Rs. 8,075 had been awarded; for pain, shock and suffering had also been taken into account for which a sum of Rs. 20,000 has been awarded for the trauma he had suffered as also the conveyance charges and keeping in view the status of the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 5,000 has been rightly awarded under the head of 'conveyance and special diet'. Award in no manner suffers from any infirmity. A bonanza is not to be given. Appeal is without any merit.