Amjad & Ors. v. NIDHI GUPTA, J

Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 31.05.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of a Tractor Trolley bearing registration No. UP-11BK-1147 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2; and insured by respondent No.3. The above said compensation was awarded along with interest @ 7% per annum. Respondents No.1 and 2/driver and owner of the offending vehicle were held liable to pay the said compensation as no Registration Certificate, Driving License, or Insurance Policy was produced by them.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that in the accident in question, appellant has suffered permanent disability. Yet, learned Tribunal has awarded meager compensation of only about Rs.1 lac. Ld. Tribunal has not properly appreciated the loss of income on account of permanent disability suffered by the appellant. Learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate with regard to loss of future earning. Even the future expenses to be incurred by the appellant have not been considered by the Tribunal while considering the compensation. Sufficient amount has not been awarded under the conventional heads. Interest only @ 7.5% p.a. has been awarded; whereas it should be 12% p.a. Further, income of the appellant has been assessed on the lower side. FAO-959-2023 (O&M) 3 of 6

4. In support, learned counsel for the appellant further relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 2066501; wherein it is held that “compensation for future prospects even in case of permanent disablement incurred as result of motor-accident.”

5. He accordingly prays that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned Award be modified by enhancing compensation in above terms.

6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Perusal of the record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant in the Claim Petition that prior to the accident, he was working as a Driver and was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. however, the appellant had failed to adduce either of the said employment or income. Appellant had further pleaded that in the accident in question, appellant had “Sustained injuries on his right arm and other parts of the body.” Perusal of the medical evidence on record shows that as per the Discharge Card Ex.P1, appellant had remained hospitalized from 31.05.2018 to

15.06.2018. Discharge Card Ex.P1 was proved by PW1 Dr. Vijay Kumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ambala City. As per the Disability Certificate Ex.P2, the claimant has suffered “20% disability due to stiffness of right elbow”. The said Disability Certificate Ex.P2 was proved by the appellant by examining PW2 Dr Vikas Paul, Civil Hospital, Ambala City. FAO-959-2023 (O&M) 4 of 6

8. However, it is to be seen as to how the said disability prevents the appellant from earning his livelihood. As noted above, the appellant had failed to prove his alleged profession as a driver and income as ₹20,000/– per month. Accordingly, the ld. Tribunal had observed that due to stiffness in right elbow, no impediment was caused to the appellant in earning his livelihood. The learned Tribunal has observed that “there is no evidence produced by the claimant to show that due to said disability, he is not able to do any kind of work. Hence, functional disability of the claimant is taken as 5% for the whole body.”

9. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has not produced any evidence to show as to how stiffness in right elbow is impeding the appellant in earning his livelihood.

10. Keeping in view the above fact, ld. Tribunal has taken income of the appellant as ₹9,868/– as a daily wage worker as per the DC rates applicable at the time. The final income of the appellant was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.7,896/- p.m. by excluding Sundays and one day of no work. I find no error in the same.

11. Furthermore, contrary to the assertions made by learned counsel for the appellant, there is nothing whatsoever on record to indicate that the said disability of the appellant is permanent in nature. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to bring anything to the notice of this Court to show that the said disability is permanent in nature. As such, reliance of the appellant upon the judgment passed in Sidram’s case (supra) is misplaced; as in the said case, claimant therein had suffered FAO-959-2023 (O&M) 5 of 6 permanent disability of 45%; whereas in the present case, appellant has suffered 5% functional disability qua the whole body.

12. Keeping in view the above facts, learned Tribunal had awarded compensation in the following manner:- Sr. No. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii)

14. applicable with Heads Minimum annual income he would have got. Loss of future earnings per annum (5% of the expected annual income) Multiplier reference to age Loss of future earnings: (4,737/- x 14) Pain and mental suffering Transportation charges Loss of income during treatment Compensation on account of disability Total compensation awarded Calculation (in Rs.) Rs.94,752/- Rs.4,737/- 14 Rs.66,318/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,264/- Rs.66,318/- Rs.1,01,582/- I find no error in the compensation assessed by ld. Tribunal. From the above facts, it is clear that a just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur” Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and “Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another” (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source FAO-959-2023 (O&M) 6 of 6 of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In the case of “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation.

15. Accordingly, I find that no ground is made out for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The present Appeal stands dismissed.

16. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

20.04.2026 Divyanshi (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No