Chitranjan Vohra vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3518 Del

1
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +    MAC.APP.No.709/2006

%                             Date of decision: 2nd September, 2009


      CHITRANJAN VOHRA                        ..... Appellant
               Through : Mr. Parminder Singh Goindi, Adv.

                          versus

      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
               Through : Mr. Pradeep Gaur, 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 appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.3,88,771/- has been

awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of

the award amount.

2. The accident dated 11th August, 1998 resulted in grievous

injuries to the appellant. The appellant was sitting on the pillion

of two wheeler scooter driven by her husband when she was hit

by tempo bearing No.DL-3C-G-6881. The appellant fell down on

the road and suffered grievous injuries. The appellant suffered

compound fracture of right tibia and fibula. The appellant was

admitted in Base Hospital from 11th August, 1998 to 5th

November, 1998 where fixator was applied in her right lower

limb. The appellant could not move due to the fixator. There

was non-union fracture of right tibia and fibula which required

bone grafting. The appellant was again admitted on 26 th

February, 1999 for operation and she was discharged on 4th

March, 1999. The doctor attending the appellant appeared in the

witness box and deposed that the appellant would require future

medical treatment for removal of the plates from her leg. The

permanent disability of the appellant has been assessed as 12%.

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,88,771/- under

various heads mentioned in the impugned award.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant remained hospitalized for about three months' and was

bed ridden for six months and, therefore, the compensation for

pain and sufferings of Rs.50,000/- is inadequate. The learned

counsel further submits that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

towards the 12% permanent disability and loss of amenities of

life is also on a lower side. The learned counsel submits that the

appellant was earning Rs.15,444/- and applying the multiplier of

12, taking the permanent disability to be 12%, the loss of income

of the injured should be assessed as Rs.2,66,872/-. The learned

counsel further submits that no compensation for future

treatment has been awarded to the appellant.

4. With respect to the claim of Rs.2,66,000/- of the appellant

towards the loss of income, it is submitted by learned counsel for

the respondent that the appellant continued to work till her

retirement and, therefore, there was no actual loss of income.

This is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant.

5. In that view of the matter, the claim of Rs.2,66,872/-

towards the loss of income is not sustainable.

6. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the

pain and sufferings which is on a lower side. Considering the

nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and further that the

appellant remained hospitalized for three months, underwent

multiple surgeries and was bed ridden for about six months, the

compensation for pain and sufferings is enhanced from

Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded

Rs.1,00,000/- towards the permanent disability and loss of

amenities of life. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by

the learned Tribunal is treated towards the permanent disability

suffered by the appellant. With respect to loss of amenities of

life, which is a separate head, Rs.50,000 is awarded to the

appellant. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any

compensation towards the future treatment. The doctor

attending the appellant has deposed in evidence that the

appellant may have to undergo another surgery for removal of

the implanted plates and Rs.15,000/- would be the expected

expenditure. Considering the evidence on record, Rs.15,000/- is

awarded to the appellant towards the future treatment.

7. The appeal is allowed and the award amount of

Rs.3,88,771/- is enhanced by Rs. 1,15,000/-. The appellant is

entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,03,771/- along with interest

@ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till

realization. The enhanced award amount be deposited by

respondent No.1 with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch

within 30 days.

8. The appellant shall open a Saving Bank Account with UCO

Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and give the account number and

other details to learned counsel for respondent No.1 who shall

directly deposit the cheque with UCO Bank in the Saving Bank

Account of the appellant.

9. The cheque drawn in the name of appellant be handed over

to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal,

Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09310356400) and the

proof of deposit be furnished to learned counsel for the appellant.

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

both the parties under signatures of Court Master.

11. Copy of this order be also sent to Mr. M.M. Tandon, Member-

Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi

(Mobile No. 09310356400) through the UCO Bank, High Court

Branch under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

SEPTEMBER 02, 2009 mk