Delhi High Court
Ved Prakash vs Rajender Parshad & Another on 17 August, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 17.08.2011
+ MAC Appeal No.321/2010
VED PRAKASH . ...........Appellant
Through: Mr Jatinder Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
RAJENDER PARSHAD & ANOTHER ..........Respondents
Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This appeal has impugned the Award dated 02.02.2010
whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- had been
awarded to the claimant/injured. The claim petition had been filed
by the injured Ved Prakash. He had suffered an accident at
Azadpur T-Point, GTK Road, Delhi at 07:00 pm when his cycle was
hit by vehicle No. DL-1P 9454 which was driven in a rash and
negligent manner; the injured was admitted in Hindu Rao
Hospital. A permanent disability had been suffered by the injured;
his MLC has been proved as Ex.PW-1/3. The injured had received
injuries on his face; fractures on his left thigh and leg knee beside
multiple abrasions over his body; teeth of the injured were shaken
up and later on broken; two duplicate teeth were also affixed; he
was operated twice for which rods had also been implanted.
Ex.PW-1/4 had showed 40% disability; it was a physical
impairment on his left knee, stiffness with a shortening of the leg.
2 The grievance of the appellant is that no amount has been
awarded under the head of future prospects; his loss of future
earnings had also not been correctly appreciated; it is because of
the injuries suffered by the injured his capacity to earn for future
years is affected but no separate amount has been awarded. The
loss of longevity of life has also not been appreciated in the
correct perspective.
3 Arguments have been countered. It is pointed out that the
Award has taken into account all these aspects and the awarded
amount calls for no interference.
4 Record shows that the facts as depicted are not in dispute.
The victim had suffered a disability of 40%; he had been awarded
compensation under six heads. Compensation for pain and
sufferings had been awarded in the sum of Rs.30,000/-; injuries on
his face, fractures on his left thigh and leg knee beside multiple
abrasion over his body; the fact that two duplicate teeth were also
affixed; he was operated twice for which rods had also been
implanted; compensation in the sum of Rs.30,000/- had been
awarded in this category.
5 A sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded under the head of
medical treatment, special diet and conveyance; this was inspite
of the fact that no medical bills or record had been filed but the
Court had taken judicial notice of this fact; this included an
amount of Rs.5,000/- as special diet and charges.
6 Under the head of compensation on account of loss of
income, no amount had been granted. This was rightly so in view
of the fact that the victim who was earlier working as a labourer
continued to do so in that same capacity; neither was his job
effected and nor was his earning capacity effected. The appellant
was working as labourer with MTNT; admittedly he continued to
work in that capacity.
7 The compensation on account of future loss of income had
been assessed at Rs.30,000/-; this was keeping in view the fact
that a disability of 40%; i.e. a physical impairment on his left knee,
stiffness with shortening leg had been suffered by the victim. The
Court had noted that after retirement the victim would probably
not been able to earn what he would have earned had he not
suffered this disability and on this count Rs.30,000/- had been
granted.
8 Under the head of compensation on account of
inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration
and mental stress an amount of Rs.40,000/- had been awarded.
This frustration, discomfort and disappointment was because of
the inconvenience suffered by the victim due to the physical
impairment of his left leg as also for disfigurement of his face;
obviously for this reason, a separate head did not find mention for
face disfigurement. By a jugglery of words compensation cannot
be awarded under the heads which heads have already been gone
into and dealt with; if a separate head of disfigurement is made
out, it would definitely overlap the compensation which had been
awarded under the head of sub-clause V and sub-clause VI.
9 Sub-clause VI is compensation on account of loss of
enjoyment of amenities of life and general damages which had
awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/-.
10 All these factors had correctly been appreciated by the trial
Court and although there was no specific evidence forthcoming by
the claimant yet in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the
victim as also the hardship which he had suffered as a result of
which the appellant had to remain on bed rest, the aforenoted
amounts had been awarded to the appellant.
11 The appeal has been assailed only on the aforenoted
grounds. All these contentions have been appreciated in the
correct perspective by the Tribunal. Admittedly the appellant was
aged 40 years when he suffered accident; he was employed as
labourer with MTNL; he continued to perform the same job even
after his accident; his capacity to earn after his retirement had
been taken into account while awarding amount of compensation
under the (IV) head.
12 As noted by the Apex Court time and again compensation
paid has to be just and fair; it cannot be a bonanza; amounts
awarded are just and fair. Impugned award in no manner calls for
any interference. Appeal is without any merit.
13 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 17, 2011
a
