Sonu vs Delhi Transport Corpn.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1671 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+         MAC App. No.278/2004

%                       Date of decision: 17th September, 2008

      SONU                               ... APPELLANT
                        Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate

                                Versus

      1. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPN.

      2. SURINDER KUMAR                    ...RESPONDENTS
                   Through: Mr. Ravi Kant Jain, Proxy counsel for
                            Mr. Jasmine Ahmed, Adv.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers        No
      may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?           No

3.    Whether the judgment should be               Yes
      reported in the Digest?

MOOL CHAND GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge

the impugned award dated 16th January, 2004, whereby in a case of

road accident under which the appellant suffered 30% disability on

account of rash and negligent act due to involvement of a DTC bus

Bearing No.DEP-8691, has only been awarded a compensation to the

tune of Rs.85,500/- detailed below:-

1. Expenses incurred on purchase of medicines etc. Rs.5,000/-.

2. Expenses incurred on conveyance and Rs.3,000/-. Special diet.

3. For 30% permanent disability Rs.67,500/- suffered by the petitioner.

4. For pain and sufferings and Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenitites.

Rs.85,500/-

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, that the

compensation awarded to the appellant is highly inadequate relying

upon another judgment of this Court delivered by Kailash Gambhir, J. in

MAC App. No.204/2004 decided on 26th April, 2004. It is submitted,

that the amount of compensation needs to be increased substantially.

3. In the case cited by learned counsel for the appellant, in similar

circumstances, when the appellant who was also aged about 9 years

(in the present case, the appellant was aged about 8 years at the time

of accident) and had suffered injuries in his right leg and a steel rod

was inserted and his disability was assessed to the extent of 30%,

Justice Kailash Gambhir enhanced the award in respect of pain and

suffering from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. The total compensation was

awarded at Rs.1,25,660/-.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

submits that in the present case, towards permanent disability higher

amount i.e. Rs.67,500/- has already been granted by the Tribunal to

the appellant. Moreover, in the present case, the accident took place

on 1st April, 1992 and therefore the Tribunal while awarding the

compensation has adequately compensated the appellant.

5. However, to my mind, the amount awarded to the petitioner on

the ground of pain and suffering is highly inadequate and required to

be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.

6. Taking into consideration that the appellant/injured has taken

treatment in the hospital for six months and is still under treatment, I

also enhanced the amounts for the purchase of medicines, expenses

incurred on conveyance and special diet, to Rs.20,000/- each.

7. Thus total amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.85,500/-

to Rs.1,57,500/-.

8. Needless to say, this amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from

the date of presentation of the petition till realization of the amount.

9. Any amount already paid to the petitioner shall be adjusted from

the amount awarded and that shall be paid within a period of three

months from today failing which further interest @ 12% shall be

payable on the award.

10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

11. Trial court record be sent back.

September 17, 2008                         MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
rs