Smt.Suraj Devi Jain And Ors. vs Kulbir Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1703 Del

     * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     FAO No. 72/2002

                      Judgment reserved on: 13.3.2008
%                     Judgment delivered on: 27.4.2009


Smt. Suraj Devi Jain And Ors.                 ...... Appellants
                      Through: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Advocate

versus


Kulbir Singh And Ors.                    ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

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

2.   To be referred to Reporter or not?           NO

3.   Whether the judgment should be reported NO
     in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 10.9.2001

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- along with interest @ 9% per

annum to the claimants.

2. The brief conspectus of the facts is as follows:

3. On 2.7.1984 at about 6 p.m., the deceased Sh. Champa Lal

Jain was standing near police post and making some enquiry from

the policeman on duty, when a taxi bearing registration No. DLT-

5793 driven at a fast speed rashly and negligently by respondent

No.1 came there from the direction of Palam Air Port and hit him.

The deceased sustained severe grievous injuries and after

sometime he became unconscious and was removed to

Safdarjung Hospital where he remained admitted up to 9 th

August, 1984 and a rod was put in left femur and skeletal traction

was given for four weeks and K-nailing was done on 1.8.1984

under general anesthesia. It is further alleged that he was taken

to Safdarjung Hospital about ten times in Taxi or Ambulance. Sh.

Champa Lal Jain expired on 30/1/1985 while undergoing

treatment for recovery from injuries sustained in the said

accident.

4. A claim petition was filed on 3.12.1984 and an award was

passed on 10.9.2001. Aggrieved with the said award

enhancement is claimed by way of the present appeal.

5. Sh. O.P. Goyal, counsel for the appellants contended that

the tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards

expenses incurred on the treatment of Sh. Champa Lal Jain and

also towards loss of earning suffered by the appellants after his

untimely death due to the injuries received by him in this

accident. The counsel contended that the tribunal erred in not

awarding compensation towards loss of love & affection, funeral

expenses and loss of consortium,.

6. Per contra, Mr. D.K. Sharma, counsel appearing for the

respondent refuted the submission made by the counsel for the

appellants. He contended that the Award made by the Tribunal is

just and fair and there is no need to interfere with the findings

given by the Tribunal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

8. The appellants seek compensation of Rs. 1,800/- for

conveyance expenses; Rs. 1,000/- for medicines; Rs. 450/- for

purchase of blood; Rs. 7,00/- for purchase of rod; Rs. 5,00/- for

special diet; Rs. 40/- per day and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for first two

months towards physiotherapy; Rs. 10,000/- for attendant

charges; Rs. 70/- for purchase of crutches and Rs. 70/- for

purchase of iron rods.

9. Pw6 Dr. A.K. Singh deposed that the deceased underwent

surgery after fracture of thigh bone left side and was discharged

on 4/8/1984. He further deposed that on 12/12/1984 he was

readmitted for partial hemi orthoplasty on 29/1/1985 and had

cardiac arrest and was declared dead on 30/1/1985.as per Ex.

PW6/1 the admission and discharge record, the deceased had a

history of roadside accident and due to it he was unable to move

the left side of his thigh. As per Ex. Pw6/2 the admission and

discharge record the deceased was admitted again on

12/12/1984 as he suffered intra capsular fracture of neck of left

femur following a fall and suffered sudden cardiac arrest at 11:00

am on 30/1/1985.

10. The tribunal based upon the aforesaid discussion, held that

the death of the deceased was result of fall which was followed

by a cardiac arrest, which has no connection with the road

accident. The accident took place on 2.7.1984 and for that he

underwent surgery and was discharged on 4/8/1984. Now the

readmission of the deceased after five months of the accident

cannot be said to have connection with the accident. Be that as it

may nothing came on record to prove the same. If a person's

negligent act or omission was the proximate and immediate

cause of death in the accident, then no compensation can be

granted in this regard. Thus, the tribunal rightly did not award

compensation towards loss of dependency and non-pecuniary

damages for death of the deceased. Therefore, I do not find any

infirmity in the said decision of the tribunal in this regard.

11. Pw5 Vijay Jain deposed that his father used to earn Rs.

1,500/- to 2,000/- pm from his restaurant. He stated in his cross

examination that the treatment of his father at the hospital was

free of cost.

12. The tribunal assessed the compensation towards

conveyance expenses, special diet, expenses towards medicines,

for purchase of blood; for purchase of rod; towards

physiotherapy; for attendant charges; for purchase of crutches

and for purchase of iron rods at Rs. 7,500/-. I do not feel that the

same requires any interference since nothing was brought on

record to prove the same. The Tribunal has given valid reasons

for awarding this compensation.

13. As regards loss of income, the tribunal assessed the income

of the deceased at Rs. 500/- pm for three months i.e. at Rs.

1,500/-. In this regard also no interference is warranted.

14. In view of the above discussion, no interference is made in

the award.

15. Dismissed.

April 27, 2009                         KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.