V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against the final impugned judgment and order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No.549 of 2007, urging various legal grounds and contentions for further enhancement of compensation in the case of a motor accident involving the appellant whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal ') by [pic]1,52,336/ - to a total sum of [pic]6,35,808/ -. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of [pic]4,83,472/ - under various heads along with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of payment. The brief facts of the case are given hereunder: The appellant, Sanjay Kumar received injuries in a roadside accident on 28.09.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck No.HR -38D -9546, the offending vehicle. The appellant remained under treatment from 26.10.2005 to 10.12.2005 and due to injuries sustained, his right leg above the knee had to be amputated. As per Entry 18 in Part II of Schedule I of the Workmen 's Compensation Act, 1923, the loss of earning capacity was assessed at 70% due to the permanent disability suffered by the appellant on account of post -traumatic amputation of his right leg above the knee. The appellant was employed as an embroidery worker and claimed compensation of [pic]15 lakhs from the respondents. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant examined two witnesses in support of his claim and documents were taken on record as evidence. PW -1 Sushil Kumar, the record clerk who filed treatment record and MLC as Ex.PW -1/A and Ex.PW -1/B respectively, and, PW -2 Sanjay Kumar, the appellant himself, and he filed his treatment record and bills as Exs.PW -2/1 to PW -2/19, his permanent disability certificate Ex.PW -2/20 and concession certificate Ex.PW -2/21. The respondents did not lead any evidence.
(3.) THE Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries and awarded pecuniary as well as non -pecuniary damages. The compensation was calculated by assigning minimum wages at [pic]3166/ - per month, of which loss of earning capacity was calculated at 70% which comes to [pic]2216/ - per month, i.e. [pic]26,592/ - per annum. Multiplier of 16 was taken. A lump sum compensation of [pic]8000/ - was given to the appellant under the head of 'medical expenses '. Hence, the total pecuniary compensation given was [pic]4,33,472/ -. A sum of [pic]50,000/ - was given as non -pecuniary damages on account of mental pain and agony and loss of future enjoyment of life suffered by him. Thus, a total compensation of [pic]4,83,472/ - was awarded to the appellant with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Both the respondents were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation but respondent No.2 being the insurer was held to have the primary obligation to pay compensation on behalf of the insured and was directed to deposit the award amount within one month from the date of the order.;