NARENDER KUMAR SABHARWAL Vs. RAMA KANT DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the appellant against an award dated 1.5.2006 whereby a sum of `1,03,813/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant in the claim petition number 104/2006 which he filed for seeking compensation on account of injuries which he sustained in a road accident which took place on 16.07.1992 when he was going on his two-wheeler scooter and was struck by a three- wheeler scooter being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The aforesaid compensation was made up for `8,813/- on account of loss of income for 7 months @ `1,259/- per month, `20,000/- towards conveyance expenses, `30,000/- towards pain and sufferings and `10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and `35,000/- on account of expenses incurred on medicines and special diet and future medical expenses. The appellant has challenged the impugned award alleging the compensation to be on much lower side. The appellant has claimed his income to be `4,000/- per month from his self-employed business of motor vehicle parts. Since the appellant was unable to produce any evidence of his income from his business, the learned Tribunal estimated his income based on the prescribed minimum wages @ `1,259/- per month for the year 1992. The appellant was aged 55 years at the time of accident and taking his income to be `1,259/- based on the minimum wages is apparently unjust inasmuch as the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the rise in price index and inflationary trends and that the minimum wages ought to have increased. Even though the appellant was unable to prove by way of any documentary evidence that he was engaged in any self-employed business of motor parts and because of that his income was to be taken as the prescribed minimum wages, his income would have increased to some extent with the passage of time. It can be estimated that 50% minimum wages would have increased with the passage of time and that being so, the average monthly income of the deceased can be assessed as `1,260+1890 divided by 2 = `1575 per month and `18,900/- per annum. In this view of the matter, the loss of income for 7 months would be `11,025/- instead of `8,813/-. The compensation of `10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life also seems to be on lower side. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment, the compensation could be assessed at `40,000/- instead of `10,000/-. The appellant had claimed `90,000/- towards expenses on medical treatment and special diet. The Tribunal had taken note of the fact that the appellant had undergone surgery three times and remained hospitalized. He has given a consolidated sum of `35,000/- towards medical expenses and special diet. Though the appellant had not claimed separate compensation for special diet and was unable to produce the bills of `90,000/-, the compensation of `35,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal would be taken as towards medical expenses. A sum of `15,000/-, is estimated compensation on account of special diet separately. Thus, the appellant is entitled to total enhanced compensation of `47,212/-.

(2.) ON this count, the challenge is also made to the order of the Tribunal ordering of `70,000/- to be kept in nationalized bank for a period of 10 years. This part of the award passed by the Tribunal is apparently unjust and harsh inasmuch as the appellant having suffered serious injuries would require the compensation not only for his livelihood but also for doing some commercial and business activities. There would not be any condition in the amount of compensation that would be payable to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned award is modified in the manner indicated above and the appellant would be entitled to aforesaid enhanced compensation which would be payable by the respondent no.3/Insurance company after adjusting the compensation as already paid within 30 days and thereafter with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the said amount till realization.