Delhi High Court
Sukh Dev Sharma vs Shami Kapoor & Ors. on 1 June, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ F.A.O. No.212 of 1989
% 01.06.2010
SUKH DEV SHARMA ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, Advocate.
Versus
SHAMI KAPOOR & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava for counsel for R-2.
Mr. J.N. Aggarwal & Mr. Mayank Joshi,
Advocates for R-4/DTC.
Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-5.
Reserved on: 17th May, 2010
Pronounced on: June 01, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this appeal, the appellant has assailed award dated 15th December, 1988 on the
ground that the compensation awarded to the appellant by the Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal was inadequate.
2. The appellant had suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 3rd January,
1983 due to negligent driving of bus bearing No.DEP-3747 and bus bearing No.DHP-
3833. At the time of accident, the appellant was working as Junior Engineer and his
salary was Rs.998.95 per month. The injuries received by the appellant were proved by
Dr. Ved Kumar Kharbanda who testified that the appellant suffered fracture of shaft
femur bone and non-union of knees. The appellant was operated twice; once in Tirath
Ram Hospital soon after the accident and thereafter in the year 1985 when K nail inserted
at the time of first operation was removed. The appellant had claimed a compensation of
Rs.5 lac on the ground that he had become disabled and could not do his normal work and
lost chances of his promotion.
3. The learned Tribunal considered various claims made by the appellant and
awarded Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony to the appellant since the appellant
had to remain admitted in hospital for about 20 days and had to undergo two operations.
The appellant had placed on record medical bills of Rs.2,812/- from Tirath Ram Hospital.
There was no proof of spending more amount although the appellant had claimed that he
spent Rs.35,000/- on his treatment. The learned Tribunal found that in the claim petition
filed after six months of the accident, the appellant had claimed that a sum of Rs.10,000/-
was spent by the appellant on medicines and hospital charges. Although, the bills
produced by the appellant were of Rs.2,812/-, the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards
medical expenses inclusive of charges for second operation. The claimant had claimed a
sum of Rs.10,000/- for special diet @ Rs.20/- per day. The Tribunal found that the
appellant had joined duty after four months. He, therefore, remained absent from duty
only for around 125 days. The Tribunal granted Rs.2,500/- for special diet @ Rs.20/- per
day for the period the appellant remained on leave from the office.
4. The appellant had claimed that he had to spent around Rs.24/- per day on scooter
charges and he stated in his statement that he spent around Rs.5,000/- on conveyance for
reaching his office and other places and he has expected to incur Rs.5,000/- more in near
future. Relying on this statement, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the
appellant towards conveyance charges during and after the treatment upto the time the
appellant's K nail was removed.
5. The appellant had taken around four months leave from office. Although, the
Tribunal observed that the appellant being a public servant was entitled to medical leave
but considered that the appellant had a right to conserve this leave for future, the
Tribunal, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the appellant for loss of income
during this period.
6. The appellant had not been granted any disability certificate by any hospital nor he
pleaded that he had been declared disabled to any extent. He, however, orally testified
that he was not able to perform his normal functions as he was not able to squat and run
properly because of his restricted knee movement. The Tribunal in view of this testimony
granted Rs.15,000/- to the appellant towards this disability.
7. The appellant had also claimed damages of Rs.3,000/- on account of repairs of
motorcycle. However, during testimony it came on record that the appellant had received
Rs.2,200/- from the insurance company towards repair of motorcycle. So, no amount was
awarded to the appellant on this count.
8. In the appeal, the contention of counsel for the appellant is that the amount of
Rs.51,500/- was a meagre amount looking at the injuries suffered by the appellant and
that the appellant throughout his life had become disabled. The appellant was at that time
aged 20 years and he had to suffer disability for rest of his life. Therefore, the
compensation awarded of Rs.15,000/- was less. Similar contentions were made in respect
of compensation for special diet and conveyance charges.
9. The award given by the learned Tribunal is based on cogent reasons, evidence and
material placed before the Tribunal. The accident had taken place in the year 1983. The
compensation was granted to the appellant in reference to the year 1983 with interest. In
the year 2010, it may look that amount of Rs.50,000/- is insignificant but in the year 1983
when this award became effective, the amount was not insignificant. The damages had
been granted by the Tribunal as asked for by the appellant. It is not that whatever
damages are claimed in a petition, are to be granted by the Tribunal blindly without
caring for the facts and objectiveness. I consider that the Tribunal passed a well-reasoned
order and granted fair and adequate damages.
10. I find no force in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
June 01, 2010
'AA'
