KAILASH NAGAR Vs. KARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, then aged 34 years, had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 8.45 p.m. on 17.11.2005 at bus stand of Sikandra Road, Mandi House, New Delhi upon being hit by bus of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bearing registration No. DL1PB 1714 (the offending vehicle) statedly driven by the first respondent herein, it being admittedly insured against third party risk by the third respondent herein. He filed claim petition seeking compensation, inter alia, claiming that he had suffered disability to the extent more than 70 %, on account of amputation of the right lower limb below knee. The claim petition was registered by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) as suit No. 91/2006 and decided by judgment dated 3rd December, 2008 awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,04, 720/ -0 with interest @ 7 % per annum computed as under: -

(2.) The appellant, feeling aggrieved, has come up with the appeal at hand seeking enhancement of the compensation raising four issues: -

(3.) While it is true that the appellant in his petition had claimed that he had suffered disability to the extent of 70 -100% in relation to "working activities", it is also true that he relied on the disability certificate (Ex.PW - 1/3) issued by medical board of Lok Nayak Hospital, Government of NCT of Delhi stating that he has suffered 60 % permanent disability in relation to the lower right limb which has been amputated below knee. The appellant had been earning his livelihood as an actor in TV serials or stage performances. Amputation of the lower right limb below knee would unduly affect his earning capacity. But, given the nature of the task that he was performing prior to the accident, having regard to the principles laid down in Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, it cannot be said that the functional disability would be to the extent of 70 -100 %. Thus, the tribunal is found to have taken an appropriate view on this subject and the grievance raised cannot be upheld.