Gurmeet Singh vs Mukhtar Khan and Ors

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 18.08.2001. The Appellant suffered 50% permanent disability in respect of his right upper limb. It was claimed before the Tribunal that the Appellant was running business and was earning Rs. 77,000/- per annum. The Income of Rs. 77,130/- was filed as per the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2001-02 with the income tax Department on 29.11.2001 i.e. after the date of the accident. The Tribunal awarded the compensation as under:

i)

Towards Expenses on Treatment

Rs. 26,465/-

ii)

Conveyance and Special Diet

Rs. 10,000/-

iii)

Loss of Amenities in Life

Rs. 2,79,936/-

iv)

For Pain & suffering

Rs. 15,000/-

v)

For inability in moving the right hand properly

Rs. 5,000/-

Total

Rs. 3,36,401/-

The Tribunal disbelieved the Income Tax Return placed on record by the Appellant on the ground that this was the only return filed by him and that too after the date of the accident. No other Income Tax return was filed before or after the accident. It is noteworthy that no evidence with regard to the Appellant''s business was placed on record except a statement purported to be filed along with Income Tax Return which showed that the Appellant was trading in ball bearings and undertook the work for repairing motor cars. In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the Appellant''s business and non-filing of any other return before or after the accident, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the Appellant''s income. Otherwise also, deceased''s income loses significance in view of the fact that while awarding compensation for loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal and this Court is required to see whether there is any functional disability affecting the loss of earning capacity in view of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, .

During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant was running a small restaurant had shifted to the business of sale and purchase of second hand cars. This is not borne out from any record. In any case, if the Appellant carried on the business of trading in ball bearings and work for repairing motor cars as was stated in the statement Ex.PW2/53 filed along with the Income Tax Return, there is no evidence that the injuries suffered by him affected his earning capacity.

There is no Appeal filed by the owner or the insurance company and, therefore, my task becomes easier. The compensation of Rs. 2,79,936/- awarded towards the loss of earning capacity was really towards the loss of amenities, pain and suffering, disfigurement and loss of marriage prospects. The Tribunal, however, erred in granting interest only from 12.04.2007. It was not the case of the Respondents nor it was so held by the Tribunal that the Appellant was in any way responsible for the delay. The Tribunal, therefore, ought not to have withheld the interest from the date of filing of the petition till after one month of the award.

Once the amount of Rs. 2,79,936/- is considered towards non-pecuniary damages as stated above, there is no ground to interfere in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Appellant would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the amount was deposited with the Tribunal.

The Respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks, failing which the Appellant would be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the interest also accrued from the date of this order till the date of payment.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. No Costs.