Sonali Shankar vs Sonu & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3541 Del

10
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +       MAC.APP.No.585/2008

%                                 Date of decision: 3rd September, 2009


      SONALI SHANKAR                        ..... Appellant
                   Through : Mr. Santosh Chaurihaa, Adv.

                      versus

      SONU & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                           Through : Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, 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.97,000/- has been awarded

to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award

amount.

2. The accident dated 11th November, 2003 resulted in

grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant suffered a scar

mark on her forehead up to nose. The appellant remained

hospitalized for six days and thereafter resumed the job.

However, the appellant could not continue the service due to the

injuries and, therefore, resigned from service.

3. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- towards the

medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards the pain and suffering

and loss of marriage prospects, Rs.4,000/- towards the

conveyance and special diet, Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of

earning and Rs.45,000/- towards the proposed plastic surgery for

the scar mark on forehead. The total compensation awarded to

the appellant is Rs.97,000/-

4. The appellant is present in Court and she submits that she

has not undergone plastic surgery and does not propose to go for

it considering the complications involved.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

amount awarded for pain and suffering and loss of marriage

prospects is on a lower side. It is noted that since the appellant

is not undergoing plastic surgery, the compensation of

Rs.45,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the

proposed plastic surgery is treated to be compensation towards

the loss of marriage prospects and the compensation of

Rs.30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the

compensation for pain and sufferings and loss of marriage

prospects is treated as compensation for pain and suffering

alone.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant lost the job because of the injuries suffered by her in

the accident. However, there is no evidence to this affect.

7. The appellant on query by this Court stated that she was

not terminated but she resigned from service.

8. In these circumstances, no case is made out for

compensation on account of the appellant resigning from service.

9. The compensation of Rs.97,000/- awarded by the learned

Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not call for any

interference.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No

costs.

11. The appellant has already received the award amount from

respondent No.2.

J.R. MIDHA, J

SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 mk