Om Praksh vs Rohtas Singh Tyagi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 938 Del

25
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                      +     MAC.APP.No.351/2006
                                Date of Decision: 18th February, 2010
%
      OM PRAKSH                                  ..... Appellant
                           Through : Mr. Navneet Goyal and
                                     Mr. Varun Kumar, Advs.
                                     along with the appellant.
                      versus
    ROHTAS SINGH TYAGI & ORS.          ..... Respondents
                  Through : Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, 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.3,58,857/- has been

awarded to him. The appellant seeks enhancement of the

award amount.

2. The accident dated 31st July, 1996 resulted in grievous

injuries to the appellant. The appellant was going to

Jhandewalan via Minto Road on the scooter. The appellant

stopped the scooter at the red light on the crossing near

Narula Hospital, Connaught Place when a blue line bus

bearing No.DL1P-2268 came from behind and hit the

appellant due to which the appellant fell down on the road

and his right leg was crushed under the wheel of the bus.

The appellant was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital by

the police from where he was shifted to Parmarth Hospital on

1st August, 1996. The appellant‟s right leg was operated. On

8th August, 1996, the appellant was shifted to Pentamed

Hospital where he underwent surgery. He was again

admitted in Parmarth Hospital on 11th August, 1996 and was

discharged on 21st September, 1996. He underwent bone

grafting and skin grafting. He was again admitted in

Parmarth Hospital on 4th October, 1996 and was discharged

on 12th October, 1996. He was also admitted in Narang

Hospital on 14th November, 1996 and was discharged on 15th

November, 1996. He remained on treatment for almost six

months. The appellant proved the bills pertaining to the

treatment taken by him vide Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3. The

appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45%

proved by way of disability certificate - Ex.PW1/4.

3. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,58,857/-

towards the expenses on medicine, Rs.75,000/- on account of

disability, Rs.5,000/- on account of conveyance, Rs.10,000/-

towards special diet and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

suffering. The total compensation awarded is Rs.3,58,857/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged the

following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) The compensation for loss of earning capacity be

awarded.

(ii) The compensation for conveyance and special

diet be enhanced.

(iii) The compensation for pain and suffering be

enhanced.

(iv) The compensation be awarded for loss of

amenities of life and disfiguration.

(v) The rate of interest be enhanced from 6% per

annum to 7.5% per annum.

5. The appellant‟s right leg from knee to toe was crushed

under the bus and badly mutilated. The bones of the right

leg below knee fractured at five places. The skin of the right

leg between knee and toe has been peeled of and the

appellant is unable to walk without the support. The heel of

the appellant is shortened by three inches. The appellant

cannot put weight on the right heel and he has been

disfigured due to the accident. The appellant is present in

the Court and his injuries have been seen by the Court as

well as counsel for respondent No.3.

6. The appellant has suffered 45% disability in respect of

his right lower limb for which the learned Tribunal has

awarded Rs.75,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

suffering. No compensation has been awarded for loss of

amenities of life and disfiguration.

7. The learned counsel refers to and relies upon the

judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal

(2008) ACJ 1300, where this Court examined all the

previous judgments with respect to the non-pecuniary

compensation awarded in the cases of permanent disability

and held that the Courts have been awarding about

Rs.3,00,000/- under the heads of non-pecuniary damages for

amputation of leg with permanent disability of 50% and

above. The findings of this Court are reproduced

hereinunder:-

"17. From the aforenoted judicial decisions, a trend which emerges is that between the years 1985 and 1990, the courts have been awarding about Rs.3,00,000/- under the head „non- pecuniary damages‟ for amputation of leg resulting in permanent disability of 50 per cent and above."

8. Following the aforesaid judgment, the compensation for

pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to

Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded

for loss of amenities of life and Rs.50,000/- towards

disfiguration.

9. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards

conveyance and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet. The

appellant is unable to walk properly without the support. The

appellants‟ heel is shortened about 3 inches and, therefore,

he is unable to travel by public transport. The appellant was

working as Inspector with Income Tax Department upto 2007

and had to incur expenses on conveyance for coming from

residence in Paharganj to his office in Laxmi Nagar. The

appellant submits that he was going and returning from his

office by three wheeler and was incurring approximately

Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day on expenses for conveyance.

The monthly expenditure for conveyance was approximately

Rs.3,000/- per month. However, considering that the

appellant would also be entitled to interest on the award

amount, this Court is of the view that Rs.1,000/- per month

should be sufficient to compensate the appellant towards the

expenditure incurred on the conveyance. The appellant

retired from service in October, 2007 and, therefore, the

appellant is awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,000/-

(Rs.1,000 x 12 x 11) for conveyance for 11 years. The

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

has to incur conveyance after 2007. It is noted that the

interest on the amount awarded should be sufficient to the

appellant to take care for his future conveyance and,

therefore, no amount is awarded for the future conveyance

after retirement from the service.

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

special diet which is on a lower side. Considering that the

appellant underwent three surgeries and remained under

treatment for about 10 months, the compensation for special

diet is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The learned

Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards permanent

disability. Considering that the appellant was working as

Income Tax Inspector with Income Tax Department at the

time of the accident and continued to remain in service

thereafter till his retirement in 2007 but no evidence has

been led by the appellant to prove that he had suffered loss

of promotion due to accident, the finding of the learned

Tribunal does not call for any interference.

11. The appellant entitled to following compensation:-

(i) Compensation for medical Rs.2,58,857/-

expenditure

(ii) Compensation on account Rs.75,000/-

of permanent disability

(iii) Compensation for Rs.1,32,000/-

conveyance (Rs.1,000 x 12 x 11)

(iv) Compensation for special Rs.25,000/-

diet

(v) Compensation for pain Rs.1,00,000/-

and suffering

(vi) Compensation for loss of Rs.1,00,000/-

amenities of life

(vii) Compensation for Rs.50,000/-

disfiguration Total Rs.7,40,857/-

12. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per

annum which is on a lower side. Following the judgment of

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal vs.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, III 2008 ACC

(1) SC, the interest is enhanced from 6% per annum to 7.5%

per annum.

13. The appeal is allowed and the award amount is

enhanced from Rs.3,58,857/- to Rs.7,40,857/- along with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the

petition till realization.

14. The enhanced award amount along with up to date

interest be deposited by respondent No.3 with UCO Bank A/c

Om Parkash, Delhi High Court Branch within 45 days.

15. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made, the UCO Bank

is directed to release 10% of the same to the appellant by

transferring the same to his Saving Bank Account. The

remaining award amount be kept in fixed deposit in the

following manner:-

(i) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of six months.

(ii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of one year.

(iii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of one and a half years.

(iv) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of two years.

(v) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of two and a half years.

(vi) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of three years.

(vii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of three and a half years.

(viii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of four years.

(ix) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% of the award

amount for a period of four and a half years.

16. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be

paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings

Account of the appellant.

17. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be

permitted to the appellant after due verification and the

Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to the appellant to

facilitate identity.

18. No cheque book be issued to the appellant without the

permission of this Court.

19. The Bank shall issue Fixed Deposit Pass Book instead of

the FDRs to the appellants and the maturity amount of the

FDRs be automatically credited to the Saving Bank Account

of the beneficiary at the end of the FDR.

20. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the

said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this

Court.

21. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in

this Court.

22. On the request of the appellant, the Bank shall transfer

the Savings Account to any other branch of UCO Bank

according to the convenience of the appellant.

23. The appellant shall furnish all the relevant documents

for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit

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

Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

24. List for reporting compliance on 5th May, 2010.

25. Copy of the order be given dasti to counsel for both the

parties under signature of the Court Master.

26. 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 FEBRUARY 18, 2010 mk