RAJEEV NAYAN Vs. SHER MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned Award dated 11th December, 2006 so as to claim enhancement in the compensation amount over and above the amount of Rs. 9,23,310/- awarded by the tribunal.

(2.) BRIEF summary of the facts of the present case are:-The appellant along with his friend was going to Haridwar by motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ-02 6m-6290 and when they reached at Kalu Sidh, a truck bearing registration No. UHQ-0387 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle, due to which they fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The right leg of the appellant was amputated due to the accident and he also sustained other multiple injuries on his entire body. The appellant was taken to a nearby hospital from the spot of accident and thereafter he was referred to AIIMS hospital.

(3.) MR. S. N. Parashar counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 13, which should have been 17 as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was of 32 years of age on the relevant date of the accident and, therefore, applicable multiplier under the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act is 17 and not 13. Counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85%, but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the future loss and towards future medical treatment. The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was working as construction supervisor at the time of his accident and he was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month and due to the amputation of his right leg the appellant became totally incapacitated to perform his job of construction supervisor. Counsel thus contended that the financial disability of the appellant is 100% as far as his job is concerned and he would have earned much more income in the near future, had the said tragedy not occurred to him. Counsel for the appellant further contended that the tribunal has awarded very meager amount of compensation under non-pecuniary damages i. e. only a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vijay Kumar Mittal and Ors. 2007 (96) DRJ 288, wherein this Court in similar circumstance of claimant suffering permanent disability to the extent of 60% due to the amputation of leg has granted Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages. Per contra Mr. A. K. De, counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. Mr. De submitted that the Tribunal has been very liberal in its approach to award compensation in favour of the appellant and therefore, he submitted that no fault can be found with the findings given by the Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent further contended that even in the absence of any evidence placed by the appellant with regard to the future loss of income, the Tribunal has been quite considerate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages. Even Award of Rs. 7,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity due to the said permanent disability is quite on the higher side. Counsel for the respondent thus submitted that this Court may not interfere in the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, which can not be considered either as unjust or unfair.