Allowed

Nirmal Kishore Khanna v. Kalu Ram @ Kalu Singh

Delhi HC4 Aug 2011MAC.APP./84/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MAC Appeal No. 84/2009, the Delhi High Court modified an industrial accident award. The Court enhanced compensation for loss of earning capacity based on a 35% permanent disability recalculated to 20% functional disability, utilizing a multipler of 9 per Sarla Verma. The award for loss of amenities to life was also modified to Rs. 50,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation for loss of earning capacity enhanced from Rs. 75,000 to Rs. 2,70,000; Rs. 50,000 awarded for loss of amenities to life.

Nirmal Kishore Khanna Vs Kalu Ram @ Kalu Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

% Date of Judgment: 04^th August, 2011

¶3

MAC Appeal No. 84/2009 and CM No. 1704/2009

¶4

NIRMAL KISHORE KHANNA ………..Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate.

¶6

Versus

¶7

KALU RAM @ KALU SINGH & ORS. ……….Respondents Through: Mr. Kanwal Choudhary, Advocate for Insurance Co.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶9

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶12

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

¶13

This appeal has impugned the Award dated 20.09.2010 vide which the compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimant who is the injured in this case. The petitioner/injured had suffered an accident on 26.08.2004; initially 38% temporary disability had been recorded qua the claimant. Thereafter, in appeal the matter had been referred to the Medical Board of the All India Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as „AIIMS‟); the

¶14

report of the AIIMS Hospital has since been received which has MAC APPEAL No.84/2009 Page 1 of 4

¶15

reported a permanent disability of the petitioner at 35%; the report states that the petitioner‟s case is of Post Truamatic Osteoarthritis both hips; he is physically handicapped and there is 35% permanent physical impairment in relation to his both lower limbs; further, there is a note that this condition is not likely to change.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount awarded under the head of “loss of earning capacity”. His contention is that amount awarded at ` 75,000/- has been miscalculated; multiplier of 5 has also wrongly been applied. It should have been 9 in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2009 INDLAW Sarla Verma Vs. DTC ’ SC 488, Supreme Court. This has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent. Keeping in view the medical certificate which has reported the medical condition of the petitioner and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the disability assessed at 10% by the Tribunal calls for an interference; the permanent disability has been assessed by the AIIMS Medical Board at 35% but keeping in view the nature of the job that the petitioner was doing, he being an LIC Agent, this court is of the view that the functional disability of the victim should be categorized at 20%. In view of the MAC APPEAL No.84/2009 Page 2 of 4

¶17

aforenoted contentions, the enhanced amount under the head of “loss of earning capacity” will now read as:-

¶18

12,500/- (salary) x 12 x 9 x 20/100 = 2,70,000/-

¶19

The sum of 75,000/- under this head is enhanced to2,70,000/-.

¶20

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner is also aggrieved by the amount awarded under head of “Attendant charges”. Attendant Charges have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 100 per day for a period of four months i.e. totaling 12,000/-. Keeping in view the status of the petitioner whose salary had been assessed at 12,500 per month and also the fact that the admission of the patient in the hospital was for a period of two months, the attendant charges calculated at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day for four months is fair and calls for no interference.

¶21

The petitioner is also aggrieved by the amount awarded under the head of “loss of income”. His contention is that the loss of income calculated for a period of eight month is counter to the evidence produced by the petitioner; his contention being that he had stayed away from work for about 23 months. Admittedly, there is no such document to this effect. This amount awarded under this head thus calls for no interference.

¶22

Petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that no amount had MAC APPEAL No.84/2009 Page 3 of 4

¶23

been awarded under the “loss of amenities to life”; his contention being that he has suffered a permanent disability, he cannot enjoy the amenities of life; he can never be a normal man. Admittedly, no amount has been awarded under the head of “loss of amenities to life” which the patient has suffered; the victim has become permanently disabled and cannot make use of his lower limbs because of the suffering of the hip joints; his permanent disability at 35 % has been assessed; this court has noted that the functional disability of the victim is assessed at 20 %; the victim has been deprived of the benefits of a normal happy life; this court is thus of the view that the award calls for an interference on this count and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is accordingly granted to the petitioner under the head of “loss of amenities to life”.

¶24

Award is modified accordingly.

¶25

No other modification is called for.

¶26

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

¶28

AUGUST 04, 2011 rb

¶29

Page 4 of 4

¶30

MAC APPEAL No.84/2009

Nirmal Kishore Khanna v. Kalu Ram @ Kalu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Kishore Khanna v. Kalu Ram @ Kalu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sheela & Ors.

Ishwari Devi Vs Madan Lal Chopra &Ors.

Sc Infotech Vs Pcs Technology Ltd.

Mange Ram Decd Thr Gomati Devi Vs Bimla Devi

Ramesh Kumar Vs Sushil Kumar & Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Arun Kumar & Ors.