Ved Prakash vs Rajender Parshad and Another

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has impugned the Award dated 02.02.2010 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- had been awarded to the claimant/injured. The claim petition had been filed by the injured Ved Prakash. He had suffered an accident at Azadpur T-Point, GTK Road, Delhi at 07:00 pm when his cycle was hit by vehicle No. DL-1P 9454 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner; the injured was admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital. A permanent disability had been suffered by the injured; his MLC has been proved as Ex.PW-1/3. The injured had received injuries on his face; fractures on his left thigh and leg knee beside multiple abrasions over his body; teeth of the injured were shaken up and later on broken; two duplicate teeth were also affixed; he was operated twice for which rods had also been implanted. Ex.PW-1/4 had showed 40% disability; it was a physical impairment on his left knee, stiffness with a shortening of the leg.

The grievance of the Appellant is that No. amount has been awarded under the head of future prospects; his loss of future earnings had also not been correctly appreciated; it is because of the injuries suffered by the injured his capacity to earn for future years is affected but No. separate amount has been awarded. The loss of longevity of life has also not been appreciated in the correct perspective.

Arguments have been countered. It is pointed out that the Award has taken into account all these aspects and the awarded amount calls for No. interference.

Record shows that the facts as depicted are not in dispute. The victim had suffered a disability of 40%; he had been awarded compensation under six heads. Compensation for pain and sufferings had been awarded in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-; injuries on his face, fractures on his left thigh and leg knee beside multiple abrasion over his body; the fact that two duplicate teeth were also affixed; he was operated twice for which rods had also been implanted; compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- had been awarded in this category.

A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded under the head of medical treatment, special diet and conveyance; this was inspite of the fact that No. medical bills or record had been filed but the Court had taken judicial notice of this fact; this included an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as special diet and charges.

Under the head of compensation on account of loss of income, No. amount had been granted. This was rightly so in view of the fact that the victim who was earlier working as a labourer continued to do so in that same capacity; neither was his job effected and nor was his earning capacity effected. The Appellant was working as labourer with MTNT; admittedly he continued to work in that capacity.

The compensation on account of future loss of income had been assessed at Rs. 30,000/-; this was keeping in view the fact that a disability of 40%; i.e. a physical impairment on his left knee, stiffness with shortening leg had been suffered by the victim. The Court had noted that after retirement the victim would probably not been able to earn what he would have earned had he not suffered this disability and on this count Rs. 30,000/- had been granted.

Under the head of compensation on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress an amount of Rs. 40,000/- had been awarded. This frustration, discomfort and disappointment was because of the inconvenience suffered by the victim due to the physical impairment of his left leg as also for disfigurement of his face; obviously for this reason, a separate head did not find mention for face disfigurement. By a jugglery of words compensation cannot be awarded under the heads which heads have already been gone into and dealt with; if a separate head of disfigurement is made out, it would definitely overlap the compensation which had been awarded under the head of sub-clause V and sub-clause VI.

Sub-clause VI is compensation on account of loss of enjoyment of amenities of life and general damages which had awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-.

All these factors had correctly been appreciated by the trial Court and although there was No. specific evidence forthcoming by the claimant yet in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the victim as also the hardship which he had suffered as a result of which the Appellant had to remain on bed rest, the aforenoted amounts had been awarded to the Appellant.

The appeal has been assailed only on the aforenoted grounds. All these contentions have been appreciated in the correct perspective by the Tribunal. Admittedly the Appellant was aged 40 years when he suffered accident; he was employed as labourer with MTNL; he continued to perform the same job even after his accident; his capacity to earn after his retirement had been taken into account while awarding amount of compensation under the (IV) head.

As noted by the Apex Court time and again compensation paid has to be just and fair; it cannot be a bonanza; amounts awarded are just and fair. Impugned award in No. manner calls for any interference. Appeal is without any merit.

Dismissed.