Delhi High Court
Shri Nardev Singh vs Shri Rakesh Behl & Ors on 26 August, 2011
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC APPEAL No.36/2009
Reserved on: 12.08.2011
Pronounced on: 26.08.2011
SHRI NARDEV SINGH ...... Appellant
Through: Nemo
Versus
SHRI RAKESH BEHL & Ors ...... Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? No
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. The appellant herein had sustained injuries in a road
accident that took place on 7th August, 2005 while he was
going on his motorcycle and was hit from behind by a truck
bearing registration number HR 65-0484. A criminal case
under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at the Police
Station Sameypur Badali. The appellant was taken to BJRM
Hospital and thereafter LNJP Hospital. He remained admitted
in the hospital from 7th August, 2005 to 17th December 2005.
The appellant received grievous injuries comprising of
fracture of pelvis with rectal and urinary bladder injuries. He
was again admitted in LNJP Hospital for post-surgery
treatment from 20th February 2006 to 4th March, 2006. Vide
the impugned award dated 16th November 2008, the
appellant was granted compensation of `1,96,000/- by
learned MACT. This total sum of `1,96,000/- on account of
compensation was on various counts such as for treatment
`20,000/-, conveyance `15,000/-, special diet `10,000/-, loss
of income `40,000/-, pain and sufferings `40,000/-, attendant
charges `6,000/-, future treatment `25,000/- and impairment
`40,000/-. This amount was awarded with interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date
of payment. The respondent/ insurance company was
directed to indemnify and pay the compensation.
2. The impugned award is challenged by the
appellant/injured alleging that the amount of compensation
awarded is insufficient keeping in view the injuries suffered
by him. The interest as awarded by the Tribunal was also
alleged to be on lower side and the same was demanded @
12% per annum.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
respondent insurance company and perused the record.
There is no dispute with regard to the amount of
compensation awarded under the head medical treatment,
conveyance, special diet and attendant charges and future
treatment. The challenge is in respect of payment of
compensation of `40,000/- each under the heads loss of
income, pain and sufferings and impairment. In addition,
compensation is also claimed under the head loss of
prospects of marriage and procreation of child.
4. With regard to the submissions regarding loss of
compensation on account of loss of income, it may be noted
that appellant was not able to prove sufficiently about his
employment and this income of `5,000/- per month. The
learned Tribunal had taken his income to be `5,000/- per
month and awarded compensation for 8 months i.e. more
than the period the appellant remained under treatment.
Though, the appellant remained admitted in the hospital for
about one and a half month initially and for about 15 days on
the second time, but he continued his treatment as Outdoor
Patient as follow-up for some time. I think learned Tribunal
has taken a reasonable view while awarding compensation
on account of loss of income for 8 months and I do not see
any reason to interfere with the same. With regard to pain
and suffering and impairment, I am of the view that keeping
in view the nature of injuries which were of grievous nature,
the amount of compensation on both these counts, seems to
be slightly on the lower side. In the totality of the facts and
circumstances, a sum of `60,000/- can be assessed as
towards pain and sufferings and `70,000/- towards
impairment. With regard to the plea of prospects of loss of
marriage or procreation of child as claimed by the appellant,
it may be suffice to say that there is nothing on record to
substantiate the plea of the appellant in this regard. There is
neither any medical evidence nor any other evidence
suggestive of these future losses to the appellant. The
learned Tribunal has discussed the entire medical evidence
and did not find any abnormality suggestive of any loss of
prospects of procreation of child. With regard to the claim of
interest @ 12% per annum, I do not see any reason to
interfere with the discretion as exercised by learned Tribunal
while awarding interest @ 7.5%.
5. In view of my above discussion, the impugned award is
modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled
to the additional sum of `20,000/- each under the heads
pain/ sufferings and impairment which shall be payable by
respondent Insurance Company with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of the filing of the petition till
realization.
6. The appeal stands disposed of with above modification
in the impugned award.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
August 26, 2011
rd
