Rajender Prasad Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors.

Rajender Prasad vs Deepak Kumar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 05, 2012

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/956884

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/956884
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: G.P. Mittal
Decided On: Dec 05, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajender Prasad

Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar

Respondent

Deepak Kumar and ors.

Advocate Mr. J.P.N. Shahi

Excerpt

.....and the physical disability was assessed to be 45% in relation to his right lower limb. no expert opinion was taken from dr. nirankar singh with regard to its impact on the appellants profession. at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the appellant was working as a mechanic. the movement of right knee would play a significant role in his working.7. in the absence of any specific evidence in raj kumar v. ajay kumar & anr., 2011 (1) scc 343.the supreme court took 45% disability in respect of left lower limb as 20% of future loss of earning capacity. in the instant case, i would also make a guess work in assessing the future loss of earning capacity as 20% on account of 45% of disability in respect of right lower limb.8. the appellant claimed his income to be `5,000/- per month. no cogent evidence was produced with regard to the income. i would, therefore, assess loss of earning on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker as fixed by the government of nct of delhi at the time of the accident which were `3,736/- per month. the appellant would be entitled to an addition of 30% on the basis of the judgment of supreme court in santosh devi v. national insurance company ltd. & ors., 2012 (4) scale 559 the loss of earning capacity thus comes to `2,09,813/(`3,736/- + 30% x 12 x 18 x 20%).9. no other contention has been raised.10. the enhanced compensation of `2,09,813/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its payment. 75% of the compensation shall be held in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of five years, rest 25% shall be released on deposit. the appellant shall be entitled to quarterly interest on the amount held in fixed deposit.11. the respondent no.3 insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of `2,09,813/- with the claims tribunal within six weeks.12. the appeal is allowed in above terms.13. pending applications stand disposed of. (g.p. mittal) judge.....

Full Judgment

$ 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:

5. h December, 2012 + MAC. APP. 1158/2011 RAJENDER PRASAD Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Versus DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.

(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,52,980/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.01.2007.

2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the insurer of the offending vehicle; the finding on negligence has attained finality.

3. The only ground of challenge raised by the Appellant is that he (the Appellant) was working as a diesel tank clutch plate mechanic. On account of 45% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb and on account of stiffness of knee, he is unable to perform his duty and has been rendered jobless. However, he has not been awarded any compensation towards loss of earning capacity.

4. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `1,52,980/-, which is tabulated hereunder: Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 1. Loss of Income `19,872/- 2. Medical Expenses ` 18,108/- 3. Pain and Suffering, Inconvenience, Mental Shock, Loss of Amenities 4. Special Diet Conveyance Charges ` 1,00,000/- ` 15,000/- Total 5. & ` 1,52,980/- On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company urges that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The compensation of `1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, inconvenience and loss of amenities include the compensation towards permanent disability.

6. I would not agree. In the Claim Petition, the Appellant pleaded that he was working as a diesel tank clutch plate mechanic and was earning `5,000/- per month. In his affidavit in support of the Claim Petition, he deposed that on account of permanent disability, he lost his job and was still unemployed. He stated that people refuse to give him any job because of his physical condition. The disability certificate Ex.PW2/A was duly proved by Dr. Nirankar Singh, HOD Orthopaedics, BSA Hospital, Rohini. The disability certificate Ex.PW2/A shows that the Appellant is physically disabled on account of stiffness of right knee and the physical disability was assessed to be 45% in relation to his right lower limb. No expert opinion was taken from Dr. Nirankar Singh with regard to its impact on the Appellants profession. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the Appellant was working as a mechanic. The movement of right knee would play a significant role in his working.

7. In the absence of any specific evidence in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343.the Supreme Court took 45% disability in respect of left lower limb as 20% of future loss of earning capacity. In the instant case, I would also make a guess work in assessing the future loss of earning capacity as 20% on account of 45% of disability in respect of right lower limb.

8. The Appellant claimed his income to be `5,000/- per month. No cogent evidence was produced with regard to the income. I would, therefore, assess loss of earning on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker as fixed by the Government of NCT of Delhi at the time of the accident which were `3,736/- per month. The Appellant would be entitled to an addition of 30% on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 The loss of earning capacity thus comes to `2,09,813/(`3,736/- + 30% x 12 x 18 x 20%).

9. No other contention has been raised.

10. The enhanced compensation of `2,09,813/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment. 75% of the compensation shall be held in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of five years, rest 25% shall be released on deposit. The Appellant shall be entitled to quarterly interest on the amount held in fixed deposit.

11. The Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of `2,09,813/- with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.

12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

13. Pending Applications stand disposed of. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 05 2012 pst

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Rajender Prasad vs Deepak Kumar and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge G.P. Mittal