IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MACA No.402/2010 Date of Decision; July 23. 2010 SUNIL KUMAR Appellant through Mr. S N Parashar, Advocate versus BRAHAM PAL & ORS Respondents through Mr. D K Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? REKHA SHARMA. T. (ORAL) It is not disputed by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that going by the disability certificate produced on the record, the appellant has suffered 100% disability on account of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the impugned award of the learned Claims Tribunal dated October 22, 2009 whereby the loss of earning capacity due to disability has been assessed at Rs.7,18,200/- is erroneous for the reason that it has taken the disability to be 95% instead of 100% and has also not taken into account the future prospects. MACA No.402/2010 ' Page 1 of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified What the Claims Tribunal has done is that it has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.3,500/- which were the prevalent minimum wages payable at the time of the accident and has worked out the compensation by adopting the following formula:- Rs.3,500/- X 18 X 12 X 95/100 = Rs.7,18,200/- It cannot be disputed that had the appellant not suffered 100% disability, he would have in the course of time earned at least double of the minimum wages which have been taken by the learned Claims Tribunal as the basis of his income for calculating the loss of earning. Therefore, what the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have done was that it should have added to the minimum wages of Rs.3,500/-, the double of those wages and after dividing the same by two should have multiplied the figure so arrived at by 12 and then by 18. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that had the Tribunal adopted this formula, the total loss of income would have come to Rs. 11,34,000/-. I see no reason why the appellant who has suffered 100% disability and has been reduced to a vegetable should not be paid Rs.11,34,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. The difference in the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal and as calculated hereinabove comes to Rs.4,16,800/- It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has also not granted any sum to the appellant towards loss of marriage prospects and disfigurement. In view of the fact that the appellant has been found to be suffering from 100% disability, his marriage prospects are totally ruined. Hence, I award him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards total loss of marriage prospects and a further MACA No.402/2010 Pagg 2of2 sum of Rs.50,000/- for disfigurement. The total enhanced amount of compensation works out of Rs.5,66,800/-. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the said amount to the appellant within four weeks from now along with interest (a) 7.5% per annum. The appeal is disposed of. REKHA SHARMA, J. JULY 23 2010 PC MACANo.402/2010 Page 3 of2