MAC APP 422/2010 Page 1 of 3 $~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 9th December, 2011 + MAC APP. 422/2010 DEEPAK ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. Versus SURENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of 10% permanent disability suffered by him in respect of left elbow (on account of stiffness) in a motor accident, which took place on 09.05.2007. The Appellant is a young boy of 16 years. 2. The Tribunal has granted a compensation of ` 83,200/- with interest @ 7.5.% per annum. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder: - Sl. No. Head of Compensation Compensation granted by the Tribunal 1. Compensation for pain & sufferings ` 20,000/- 2. Compensation for expenses incurred on medical ` 3,000/- MAC APP 422/2010 Page 2 of 3 treatment 3. Compensation for special diet ` 3,000/- 4. Compensation for conveyance charges ` 2,000/- 5. Compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life & general damages ` 25,000/- 6. Compensation on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life ` 20,000/- 7. Compensation on account of curtailment of chances of marriage prospects ` 10,000/- Total ` 83,200/- 3. A very short submission is raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant suffered 10% permanent disability in relation to his left elbow still no compensation on account of loss of future earning capacity was granted. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 it was laid down by the Supreme Court that permanent disability and loss of earning capacity are two different things. The permanent disability will have relation to the victim’s avocation, to assess the extent of the loss of earning capacity. Thus, loss of earning capacity has to be established by the Appellant for grant of compensation under this head. The Appellant is a student and he may really not have permanent disability affecting his earning capacity. As can be seen from para 2 above a compensation of ` 75,000/- MAC APP 422/2010 Page 3 of 3 under non-pecuniary heads was granted in addition to the actual expenses on treatment, special diet and conveyance charges. It cannot be said that the compensation is not just and proper rather the compensation is more than adequate. 4. The appeal is devoid of any merit. I refrain from imposing any cost as the Appellant is a victim and is a young boy. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 9, 2011 hs