Shri Kali Charan vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kailash Gambhir, J.—By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned award dated 17.4.99, by which a sum of Rs. 1,36,579/- has been awarded by the tribunal in favour of the appellant.

Brief summary of the facts of this case are as under:

On 30.8.90 the appellant was going on motor cycle bearing registration No. DNI-8715 alongwith his friend towards Loni and when they reached at Gokalpur red light they were hit from behind by a truck bearing registration No. DEL-4721, being driven by the driver of the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. As a result, the appellant sustained serious injuries in his leg. The appellant was removed to GTB Hospital, Shahdara, where the portion of the leg below knee was amputated.

Mr. M.L. Kesturi, counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was an agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month. Counsel further contends that the tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects of the appellant. Counsel also contends that the appellant has suffered disability to an extent of 70% as his right leg was amputated upto the knee and due to the said disability, the appellant was rendered jobless and he could not carry on his vocation as an agriculturist but the tribunal has not granted any amount of compensation towards the permanent disability as well as towards loss of amenities.

Per contra, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa counsel for the respondent contends that tribunal has granted adequate and just compensation keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the appellant. Counsel further contends that the grant of Rs. 1,06,579.20/- is not only for loss of earnings but also for permanent disability suffered by the appellant.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Perusal of record shows that the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that he was an agriculturist and was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month. A bald statement was made by the appellant claiming the said income from his avocation of being an agriculturist. The tribunal in the impugned award observed that counsel for the appellant has failed to produce evidence to show that the appellant was an agriculturist. Appellant also failed to show that his income was between 4,000/- to 5,000/- from agriculture. Not only this, he failed to place on record any document to show his ownership or possession of a particular piece of land on which he was doing the said job of agriculturist. In the absence of any evidence placed on record by the appellant, the tribunal has rightly taken recourse to the Minimum Wages Act for assessing income of the appellant. On the relevant date of accident, the applicable minimum wages according to Minimum Wages Act for a worker were Rs. 793/- per month and the said wages had been taken into consideration for determining the loss of earning capacity of the appellant. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned award on this aspect. However, while assessing the loss of earning of the appellant, the tribunal has not taken into consideration the future increase in minimum wages and to that extent, I find irrationality in the impugned award. Once the wages of victim of the accident are considered under the Minimum Wages Act, then, the benefit of increase in the minimum wages should also be taken into consideration. One can take judicial notice of the fact that minimum wages become more than doubled within a span of 10 years period as the Minimum Wages are revised twice in a year by the Government after taking into consideration inflation, price index and other economic factors. The appellant was a young man of 25 years of age on the date of accident and tribunal has applied a multiplier of 16 and considering the said multiplier, the assessed income of Rs. 793/- per month will become double within a period of 10 years i.e. Rs. 1,586/- and taking average of both the incomes, monthly income of the appellant will come to Rs. 1189.50/-. Taking the said monthly income into consideration, loss of earning of the petitioner would come to Rs. 2,28,384/- The amount of Rs. 1,06,579.20/- as assessed by the tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 1,21,804.80. The tribunal has not awarded any amount towards permanent disability of 70% suffered by him and no amount has also been granted to the appellant to loss of amenities. It is not in dispute that disability of 70% of the appellant was proved on record and his right leg was amputated upto the knee.

I thus, award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant towards permanent disability suffered by the appellant and towards loss of amenities. The appellant has already received the amount of compensation as awarded in the impugned award. The differential amount shall be paid by the respondent insurance company along with up to date interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization after deducting interest from the period i.e. 18.3.96 to 5.11.98 which has also been deducted by the tribunal while granting the interest.

With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.