Deepak vs Surender Kumar and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of 10% permanent disability suffered by him in respect of left elbow (on account of stiffness) in a motor accident, which took place on 09.05.2007. The Appellant is a young boy of 16 years.

The Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 83,200/- with interest @ 7.5.% per annum. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder: -

Sl. No.

Head of Compensation

Compensation granted by the Tribunal

1.

Compensation for pain & sufferings

Rs. 20,000/-

2.

Compensation for expenses incurred on medical treatment

Rs. 3,000/-

3.

Compensation for special diet

Rs. 3,000/-

4.

Compensation for conveyance charges

Rs. 2,000/-

5.

Compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life & general damages

Rs. 25,000/-

6.

Compensation on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life

Rs. 20,000/-

7.

Compensation on account of curtailment of chances of marriage prospects

Rs. 10,000/-

Total

Rs. 83,200/-

A very short submission is raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant suffered 10% permanent disability in relation to his left elbow still no compensation on account of loss of future earning capacity was granted. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that permanent disability and loss of earning capacity are two different things. The permanent disability will have relation to the victim''s avocation, to assess the extent of the loss of earning capacity. Thus, loss of earning capacity has to be established by the Appellant for grant of compensation under this head. The Appellant is a student and he may really not have permanent disability affecting his earning capacity. As can be seen from para 2 above a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- under non-pecuniary heads was granted in addition to the actual expenses on treatment, special diet and conveyance charges. It cannot be said that the compensation is not just and proper rather the compensation is more than adequate.

The appeal is devoid of any merit. I refrain from imposing any cost as the Appellant is a victim and is a young boy.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.