Kuldip Chand Suri vs Shyam Rathi & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1727 Del

31
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        +     FAO No.204/1997

                                  Date of Decision: 28th April, 2009
%

      KULDIP CHAND SURI                    ..... Appellant
                    Through : Mr. Salil Paul, Adv.

                   versus

      SHYAM RATHI & ORS                ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                  Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 Yes

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

                            JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The accident dated 17th May, 1982 resulted in fracture

of left leg of the appellant. The surgery was performed on

the left leg of the appellant which was shortened by 2 cm.

The permanent disability of the appellant has been assessed

as 20% as per the Ex.PW7/X in respect to left lower limb.

The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards

expenditure on medicines, Rs.10,000/- on account of

conveyance, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs.5,000/-

towards pain and agony, Rs.4,500/- towards loss of income

and Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability. The total

compensation awarded is Rs.59,500/-.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

amount awarded towards pain and agony and permanent

disability is very low and the same should be enhanced.

3. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for pain

and agony which is inadequate. The compensation on

account of permanent disability is also inadequate. The

compensation under both these heads form part of non-

pecuniary damages and has to be just, fair and reasonable

and also in conformity with the amount awarded by the

Courts. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to and

relies upon the judgments in the cases of Hardeep Singh

vs. Harbhajan Singh, 1996 ACJ 1170, Sham

Harbhagvandas Peshori vs. Albright Morarji & Pandit

Ltd., 1996 ACJ 1101, Aman Dahiya vs. Surinder Jain,

1993 ACJ 120, Thanamna Methew vs. Mummidiverepa,

1997 ACJ 574 and Nagappa Mahadev Doddaamani vs.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 1128 where

higher amount has been awarded.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the

compensation for pain and agony is enhanced from

Rs.5,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and compensation on account of

permanent disability is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to

Rs.30,000/-.

5. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is

enhanced from Rs.59,500/- to Rs.84,500/-. The learned

Tribunal had awarded 12% interest from the date of filing of

the petition till realization. The rate of interest on the

original award is not disturbed. However, the rate of interest

on the enhanced amount shall be 7.5% from the date of filing

of the petition till realization following the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Dharampal vs. U.P. State Road

Transport Corporation, III 2008 ACC (1) SC.

6. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced

amount along with interest thereon with the learned Tribunal

within 30 days.

7. Upon such amount being deposit, the learned Tribunal

shall release the award amount to the appellant without any

restriction of fixed deposit.

8. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for both the parties under signatures of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 28, 2009 mk