* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC APPEAL No.147/2006
Reserved on: 21.09.2011
Pronounced on: 30.09.2011
SHRI SHAMSHER SINGH ...... Appellant
Through: Nemo
Versus
SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR & OTHERS ...... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? No
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 18th August, 2005 of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) which came to be passed in the claim petition No. 324/2003 (Old No.398/2003) filed by the appellant for seeking compensation on account of injuries which were sustained by him in the road accident which took place on 26th April, 2003 when he was going on his two wheeler scooter and was hit by a truck bearing registration No.HP-14-2565 being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner. The said truck was stated to MAC APPEAL No.147/2006 Page 1 of 5 be owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of `3,16,327/- which was made up on account of pain and suffering `30,000/-, medicines and medical treatment `28,930/-, special diet and conveyance `20,000/-, employing attendant `24,000/- loss of enjoyment, amenities and general damages `50,000/-, loss of expectancy of life `20,000/- and on account of loss of leaves `1,43,397/-.
2. The impugned award is assailed by the appellant alleging the compensation to be on lower side. The appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation on different counts. The main grievance of the appellant is that he suffered disability to the extent of 55 per cent which lowered his earning capacity and future prospects of earning. It is also alleged that the compensation awarded on account of loss of enjoyment of amenities and general damages, on account of loss of expectancy of life, pain and sufferings etc. are on lower side.
3. The appellant was aged about 56 years and posted as Inspector in Delhi Police and getting `14,000/- per month as salary at the time of accident. After the accident, he was admitted in St. Stephens' Hospital where he remained admitted from 26.04.2003 to 09.07.2003. A sum of `1,70,165/- was the amount of medical expenses of the hospital. The injuries suffered MAC APPEAL No.147/2006 Page 2 of 5 by the appellant were diagnosed as crush injuries. An operation was performed upon the appellant and a fixation was inserted in his leg. As per the appellant, his leg shortened by five inches and he could walk only with the help of a walker and a specially made shoe. He stated to have spent `2,00,000/- on his treatment in the hospital. Admittedly, a sum of `1,76,000/- was reimbursed to him by his department. The appellant had submitted few bills totaling to `28,930/- of expenditure towards medical treatment which remained to be reimbursed by his department. The Tribunal awarded compensation of this amount accepting the same to be correct. A sum of `30,000/- was awarded on account of pain and suffering. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the period of hospitalization, a sum of `50,000/- ought to have been awarded to the appellant on account of pain and suffering. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to the enhanced sum of `20,000/- on this count.
4. As noted above, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of `20,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, which again, to my mind, seems to be on lower side. Keeping in view the period of hospitalization and the nature of injuries, the compensation is assessed as `20,000/- each on account of special diet and conveyance and accordingly the appellant would be entitled to additional sum of `20,000/- on this count.
MAC APPEAL No.147/2006 Page 3 of 5
5. I do not see any infirmity in awarding `24,000/- to the appellant on account of employing attendant.
6. However, award of compensation of `50,000/- to the appellant by the Tribunal on account of loss of enjoyment of amenities and general damages is also seen to be on lower side. Likewise, compensation of `20,000/- on account of loss of expectancy of life is also on lower side. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the period of hospitalization, I would assess the compensation on account loss of enjoyment of amenities and general damages to be `70,000/- and `50,000/- on account of loss of expectancy of life. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to enhanced compensation of `20,000/- and `30,000/- respectively on these two counts.
I do not see any infirmity in awarding compensation `1,43,397/- to the appellant on account of loss of leaves.
7. In view of the above discussions, the appellant is found to be entitled to enhanced compensation of `90,000/-, which respondent No. 3, being the insurer, would be liable to pay.
8. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of `90,000/- within 30 days of this order MAC APPEAL No.147/2006 Page 4 of 5 failing which interest @7.5% would be payable to the appellant from the date of this order till the date of realization.
9. The appeal stands disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA (JUDGE) September 30, 2011 awanish MAC APPEAL No.147/2006 Page 5 of 5