Ms. Surender Kaur vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4134 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of Judgment: 25.08.2011

+ MAC APPEAL No. 357/2011 and CM No. 7971/2011 (under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC)


MS. SURENDER KAUR                               ...........Appellant
                          Through:   Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey,
                                     Advocate.

                    Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.   ..........Respondents
                 Through: Mr. R.C. Mahajan Advocate.


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. The Award impugned is the Award dated 24.11.2010 vide

which total compensation in the sum of Rs.4,80,584/- had been

granted to the injured/petitioner. The petitioner/Surender Kaur

had suffered an accident on 13.12.2008 when she was going on a

motorcycle being driven by her son/Simranpreet Singh. Both the

injured had received injuries and had been removed to the AIIMS

Hospital. On the pleadings of the party and after examining

respective evidence of parties, the aforenoted amount had been

granted in favour of the claimant/petitioner. Present application

under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟) has been filed wherein it

has been contended that certain bills of the medical treatment of

the victim had been overlooked as they could not be adduced at

the time of leading evidence before the learned Tribunal. It is

pertinent to note that in this application under Order 41 Rule 27

of the Code no details have been given of the aforenoted bills;

they also do not find mention as an annexure to the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has however pointed out that

the aforenoted bills have been placed on record and are at

running pages No. 36. to page No. 86 of the paper book. Copy of

this application had been furnished to the learned counsel for the

respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out

that all these bills are from October, 2010; a perusal of the first

document at page No. 36 which is a hospital slip of the Batra

Hospital indicates that the patient had fallen from the stairs on

08.10.2010 pursuant to which she has sustained injury on the

thigh; on a specific query put to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, he has conceded that these medical treatment papers

are related to the afornoted period when the victim Surender Kaur

had fallen from the stairs; they have no relation to the accident

whatsoever which had occurred on 13.12.2008. This application is

clearly an abuse; it is misconceived; it is dismissed.

2. The grievance of the appellant in the impugned Award is

that the amounts awarded under the head of "conveyance and

special diet charges" which is in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and "pain

suffering and loss of amenities of life" at Rs. 50,000/- is on the

lower count. Record shows that the patient had suffered no

permanent disability. She had suffered grievous injuries i.e.

segmental fracture right femur with fracture distal femur left with

fracture right clavicle with fracture premaxilla and dentoalveolar

alognwith head injury. Patient remained admitted in the hospital

as an indoor patient admittedly for a period about 25 days with

effect from 14.10.2008 up to 08.01.2009. The victim has been

compensated for the complete medical bills which had been

presented by her i.e. in the sum of Rs. 3,98,486/-. Court had also

keept in view the fact that since the lady was unable to join her

duty because of the injury suffered by her, under the head "loss

of income" awarded a sum of Rs. 22,098/- i.e. for a period of six

months; keeping in view her salary of Rs. 3,683/- which were the

minimum wages applicable in the case of the victim who was

doing stitching work from the house. Under the head "conveyance

and special diet charges" in this factual scenario had awarded a

sum of Rs. 10,000/-. This was taking judicial notice of the fact that

although the patient had remained in the hospital for about 25

days; she must have made some visits to the hospital as also

keeping in view the specialized diet required for an accident

victim. Keeping in view the status of the victim amount awarded

under this category in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- suffers from no

infirmity. "Pain and suffering and loss of the amenities of life" had

also been construed in the correct perspective wherein a lump

sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- had been granted; total awarded

amount of Rs. 4,80,584/- suffers from no infirmity.

3. Appeal is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 25, 2011 rb