M.L. Mehta, J.@mdashIn this appeal the appellant has made a challenge to the judgment and award dated 16.01.2006 of Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal (MACT), Delhi whereby he had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,10,756/- as compensation in the claim petition filed by the appellant for seeking
compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the road accident which took place on 25.11.2003. The appellant was crossing the road
when he was hit by bus DL 1 PB 5371 driven by its driver at a very fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Due to impact of the accident,
he fell down and sustained grave injuries with multiple fractures in his left leg. He was removed to GTB hospital where he remained admitted from
25.11.2003 to 22.02.2004. Three major operations were conducted on left leg of the appellant and multiple steel rods were inserted in his left leg.
Skin grafting was also done on the left leg by taking out flesh from his right thigh. The appellant suffered degloving of left leg besides painful
ankylosis of left knee joints and reduced movement of left ankle. He sustained permanent disability of 82 percent. He was aged about 20 years at
the time of accident and was working in a metal factory at Muradabad and earning Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000/- per month.
2. The tribunal, based on prescribed minimum wages, estimated the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 2,784/- p.m. He estimated the financial loss
of earning capacity of the appellant to be 40% of the permanent disability of 82%. He assessed total loss of earning capacity to be Rs. 2,27,256/-
and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,10,756/- in total which was made up of Rs. 2,27,256/- on account of loss of earning capacity, Rs. 10,000/-
on account of expenses, conveyance and special diet, Rs. 8500/- on account of loss of income during the period of treatment, Rs. 25,000/- on
account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of future enjoyment of life.
3. The appellant has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the compensation amount awarded was on much lower side. He has assailed
the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to his assessing loss of earning capacity to be 40% as against his permanent disability of 82%. The
award of compensation on account of loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering is also alleged to be on much lower side. Likewise, the award of
Rs. 10,000/- on account of medical expenses, conveyance and special diet was also alleged to be quite meager. The appellant has also assailed
the award for not being awarded compensation on account of attendant charges.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and for the respondent No. 2/insurance company.
5. The petitioner was stated to be working in a metal factory at Muradabad and earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. Neither any
evidence was produced regarding his employment nor to the fact that he was earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month from the factory. In
such circumstance the Tribunal has rightly taken the prescribed minimum wages of Rs. 2,784/- per month. There was no dispute with regard to the
age of the appellant to be 20 years at the time of accident. There is also no dispute that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is constant
increase in minimum wages by the Government keeping in view the rise in prices of essential commodities, inflation and price index. In view of the
age of the appellant to be 20 years, it could be expected that he would live long life and in that eventuality, in due course of time, even prescribed
minimum wages would also increase considerably. Hence, it can be estimated that the minimum wages which were Rs. 2,784/- p.m. (say Rs.
2800/-) at the time of accident in the year 2003 would have been at least doubled. Thus, as per judicial decisions, the average monthly income of
the appellant can be arrived at by dividing the sum of present minimum wages and double of the present minimum wages. In this manner, the
average minimum wages of the appellant could be arrived at Rs. 4200/- per month (Rs. 2800/- + Rs. 5,600/- divided by 2).
6. The Tribunal has recorded that there was ample evidence on record with regard to the permanent disability of the petitioner. Dr. Anil Arora,
Reader, Orthopedic, GTB Hospital testified regarding the nature of disability suffered by the appellant to be 82% functional loss of left lower limb.
To my mind, the Tribunal seemed to have erred in making some guess work in taking the functional disability to be 40%. In fact, it depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case, particularly, in view of the nature of injury and nature of job which the injured was doing. There is no
evidence whether the appellant was a skilled worker in the factory or just an ordinary laborer. However, taking into account the case of an
ordinary labor, the appellant would definitely be incapacitated of the full use of his left hand. Most of the works which the laborers do, they do with
the use of their hands. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the functional permanent disability can be estimated to be 50% in relation to
whole body.
7. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17, whereas as per the age of the appellant and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt.
Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , a multiplier of 18 was to be applied. The appellant could be said to have
suffered loss of Rs. 2100/- per month being 50% of his average monthly income and applying the multiplier of 18, his total loss of earning capacity
comes out to Rs. 4,53,600/- in stead of Rs. 2,27,256/- as assessed by the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,500/- on account of loss of income for three months, which to my mind, comes out to Rs. 12,600/- as per
average monthly income of Rs. 4,200/-. The appellant would be entitled to this amount on this count.
9. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount to the appellant on account of his expenses towards attendant charges despite the fact that PW-2 has
stated that he was working as attendant for the appellant in the hospital and he received Rs. 100/- per day for about three months. This was a
reasonable demand raised by the appellant for which no strict proof was required to be insisted by the Tribunal. The appellant will be entitled to
Rs. 10,000/- under the head of expenses for attendant.
10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of future enjoyment of life.
Since the appellant is being granted just and reasonable compensation on account of permanent disability, the award of compensation Rs. 25,000/-
and Rs. 40,000/- respectively under these two heads seems to be quite just and reasonable. However, the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/-
only towards expenses for the treatment, conveyance and special diet seems to be on quite lower side. Once the nature of injuries and the type of
treatment are believed by the Court and it is also on record that the injured remained hospitalized for quite some time, the expenses of treatment,
conveyance and special died are unavoidable. Many a times people do not procure or preserve the receipts of these expenses. The Court has to
take a holistic view of expenses under these heads. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization and treatment, a sum of Rs.
10,000/- each is awarded on account of expenses on treatment, conveyance and special diet. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to the
compensation of Rs. 30,000/- collectively on these heads against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,71,200/- as against Rs. 3,10,756/- awarded by the Tribunal. The
insurance company, being the insurer, is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation within 30 days from today to the appellant without
interest and if the amount is paid beyond 30 days the same would be paid with interest of 7.5% per annum.
12. The appeal stands disposed of.
