Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
2. The appellant herein was riding the motor cycle involved
in the accident. In the claim petition he claimed that he was engaged in
door to door sale of beds and was earning 7,000/- per month. The
main grievance of the appellant is that despite such specific averments
in the claim petition the Tribunal took his monthly income notionally at
3,000/-, only. The further grievance of the appellant is that despite
the certification in Ext.A24 that he incurred 29% permanent disability
the Tribunal took the whole body disability as 25%. The learned
M.A.C.A.Nos.2269 & 2270 of 2012 3
counsel for the appellant contended that owing to an erroneous
assessment of the extent of permanent disability and the monthly
income the appellant was deprived of a just compensation. But, at the
same time, it is admitted that with reference to the age of the appellant
the Tribunal adopted the correct multiplier in the light of the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)). That apart, it is contended
that the appellant was hospitalised for a number of times, precisely, on
22 occasions. Still, ignoring the expenditure incurred the Tribunal had
granted only an amount of 5,000/- towards transportation expenses
as against a claim of 50,000/-. Despite the hospitalisation for 356
days towards extra nourishment the Tribunal had granted only an
amount of 15,000/- as against a claim of 50,000/-. Though an
amount of 1,000/- was sought for towards damage to clothing no
amount was granted by the Tribunal. It is in the said circumstances
that the learned counsel contended that the appellant is entitled to get
enhanced compensation under the aforesaid heads. Per contra, the
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the insurer of the
offending vehicle contended that a scanning of the schedule of
compensation given in the impugned judgment would reveal that the
appellant was adequately compensated by the Tribunal under all heads.
It is further contended that the appellant though claimed that he was a
M.A.C.A.Nos.2269 & 2270 of 2012 4
salesman he failed to adduce any evidence in support of such claim. In
such circumstances, the Tribunal could not be found fault with in fixing
the monthly income of the appellant notionally, it is further contended.
The accident occurred on 6.4.2006 and therefore, according to the
learned counsel, the fixation of the monthly income as 3,000/- also
warrants no interference. It is also contended by the learned counsel
for the 3rd respondent that the Tribunal considered the disability
certificate and took note of the reasons assigned for arriving at the
disability certified thereunder and that apart, the Tribunal had closely
observed the appellant in court and it is only thereafter that his whole
body disability was assessed as 25%. In short, according to the
learned counsel, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the
award passed by the Tribunal and what is granted to the appellant is
just compensation.