PARADEEP KUMAR MITTAL Vs. DINESH KUMAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned Award of 21st February, 2013 grants compensation of Rs. 1,42,297/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum to appellant- Pradeep Kumar Mittal (hereinafter referred to as "Injured"), aged 32 years, who was engaged in the business of Tent and Decorators, had suffered grievous injuries in a vehicular accident, which took place on 8th February, 2010. The facts, as noticed in the impugned Award, are as under:-

(2.) To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as "the Tribunal") has relied upon evidence of Injured- Pradeep Kumar Mittal and other evidence on record. The Tribunal has noted in the impugned Award that Injured- Pradeep Kumar Mittal had suffered 9% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb and has assessed the functional disability to be 5%. The Tribunal has assessed the income of Injured-Pradeep Kumar Mittal on minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker and multiplier of 16 has been applied and after making addition of 30% towards "future prospects", future loss of income of Injured- Pradeep Kumar Mittal has been assessed at Rs. 65,865/-. The breakup of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Injured is as under:-

(3.) In this appeal, enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is sought by Injured- Pradeep Kumar Mittal on the ground that the compensation granted is inadequate. It is submitted by counsel for Injured- Pradeep Kumar Mittal that the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of Injured-Pradeep Kumar Mittal on minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker, whereas minimum wages payable to a skilled worker on the day of accident ought to have been considered while assessing the "loss of earning capacity". It is next submitted that compensation under the head "loss of amenities of life" ought to be granted and the Tribunal has erred in not granting it and that the compensation granted under the "non-pecuniary heads" is inadequate and it be suitably enhanced. Lastly, it is submitted that finding of contributory negligence returned by the Tribunal and of putting liability of 30% upon Injured is unjustified and it needs to be set aside.