Inderjeet Singh vs Dinesh Chawla & Ors.

$~ R-11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of decision:5th January, 2012
+       FAO NO.275/2000

        INDERJEET SINGH                           ..... Appellant
                      Through          Mr.M.B. Singh, Advocate

                    versus


        DINESH CHAWLA & ORS                       ..... Respondents
                    Through            Mr. S.L. Gupta with Mr. Ram
                                       Ashray, Advocate for
                                       Respondent No.3/Oriental
                                       Insurance Co.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 31.03.1989. The Appellant suffered fracture of tibia apart from other injuries. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW6/2, the Appellant got permanent disability to the extent of 25% pertaining to the lower limbs. The certificate Ex.PW6/2 is extracted hereunder: -

"Certified that Mr. Inderjeet Singh 51 years, male S/o Lae Sardar Jassa Singh has sustained fracture leg bones (Lt) in March 1989 and was operated in April 1989. He was subsequently operated in May 1991. He is under our treatment throughout. I have examined him in detail and he has developed secondary osteo-arthrosis (Lt) knee with restricted movements. He cannot squat or sit cross legged. He cannot run or jump also. His partial permanent disability is around twenty five (25%) percent pertaining to lower limbs."

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that although the Appellant was compensated for the compensation for the loss of leave, but he was not awarded any compensation for the loss of amenities in life. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and conveyance charges was low. No compensation was awarded towards special diet and for engaging an attendant.

3. The difference between permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity and functional disability was brought out by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343. It is admitted case of the parties that the Appellant was working as a Manager in the State Bank of India at the time of the accident. The permanent disability did not affect the Appellant's earning capacity he continued to work as a Manager after the accident. The cost of the treatment undertaken by the Appellant was reimbursed by his department and is not the subject-matter of the claim before FAO No.275/2000 Page 2 of 5 this Court. A compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards permanent disability, which was really for loss of amenities in life.

4. It is borne out from the record that the Appellant was operated upon in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and remained admitted there from 31.03.1989 to 16.04.1989. He remained on leave from 31.03.89 to 07.08.89 and then from 13.05.91 to 15.06.1991. The Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the Appellant underwent a prolonged treatment.

5. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal declined to grant any compensation on account of special diet on the ground that the doctor had not specifically prescribed any special diet. Considering the nature of injuries and the long duration of the treatment, the Appellant needed to be compensated by awarding some compensation for special diet. It is evident that the Appellant was an officer aged 45 years at the time of the accident. As per the disability certificate, he cannot sit cross legged; cannot squat, cannot run or jump. He would have to live with this disability throughout his life. Thus the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering needs to be enhanced. Considering the duration of treatment right from 31.03.1989 till 15.06.1991 and then thereafter, the Appellant claimed conveyance charges @ Rs.2,000/- to 3000/- per month. A lump sum compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded was on the FAO No.275/2000 Page 3 of 5 lower side.

6. The compensation reassessed by this Court is tabulated hereunder: -

          Sl.     Compensation Head           By   the By      this
                                             Tribunal Court(Amount
          No.
                                             (Amount in `)
                                             in `)

          1.      For Pain, Shock and          15,000/-        25,000/-
                  Suffering

          2.      For Loss of Leave            35,181/-        35,181/-

          3.      For Loss of Conveyance        3,000/-          5,000/-

          4.      For Loss of Permanent        25,000/-        40,000/-
                  Disability/Loss    of
                  Amenities

          5.      Special Diet                  Nil              5,000/-

          6.      Attending Charges(for         Nil              2,500/-
                  five months @ `500/- per
                  month)

                  Total                        78,181/-      1,12,681/-

7. The enhanced compensation of `34,500/- shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of the award i.e. 10.03.2000 and from the date of the award @ 7.5% per annum till the date of payment. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 30 FAO No.275/2000 Page 4 of 5 days with the Registrar General of this Court, which shall be released to the Appellant forthwith.

8. The appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 05, 2012 pst FAO No.275/2000 Page 5 of 5