Delhi High Court
Shri Bakshish Sobti vs Shri Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 5 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 05 , 2011
+ FAO No.707/2003
SHRI BAKSHISH SOBTI ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate with
Ms. Swati N. Sirka, Advocate &
Ms.Deepshikha Chaudhary, Advocate
versus
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate for
Respondent No.4 insurance company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of the
injuries suffered by the Appellant in an accident which took place on
25.01.1995. The Appellant was hit by a bus bearing DL-1P-7555 while the
Appellant was going on his two-wheeler scooter No.DND-5561.
2. The Tribunal awarded compensation of ` 13,555/- towards purchase
of medicines whose bills were placed on record, ` 2,000/- each towards
conveyance and special diet, ` 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and `
39,170/- for loss of income for ten months for which the Appellant could not
attend to his work.
3. It is averred that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is low.
The Appellant was unable to preserve all the bills as he spent ` 30,000/- on
purchase of medicines. The provision for conveyance and special diet and
mental pain and agony is claimed to be on the lower side. It is averred that
though the Appellant suffered permanent disability in respect of left lower
limb to the extent of 20%, yet no compensation was awarded.
4. The Appellant did not produce any evidence with regard to any
functional disability affecting his earning capacity. Thus, in view of Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar And Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Appellant
was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning capacity.
5. It was proved on record that the Appellant remained admitted in
L.N.J.P. Hospital from 25.01.1995 to 01.02.1995, continued treatment in
G.B. Pant Hospital and then in RML Hospital from 04.03.1995 to
14.03.1995. It was also established on record that the Appellant remained an
outdoor patient upto to October, 1995. Considering that the Appellant
remained under treatment for a little less than ten months, the provision
towards loss of income for ten months was rightly made. The compensation
granted towards conveyance and special diet was, however, on the lower
side. The disability certificate Ex.PW8/3 showing 20% disability of left
lower limb although issued by a private doctor, yet the fact that the
Appellant would not be able to squat as stated in the disability certificate
was not disputed in his cross-examination. The Appellant was entitled to be
compensated for loss of amenities in life. The compensation awarded,
considering the duration of the illness towards pain and suffering was on the
lower side.
6. I will proceed to tabulate the compensation under various heads as
follows:
S.No. Head of Compensation Compensation Compensation
granted by the granted by this
Tribunal Court
1. Treatment of Medicines `13,555/- `20,000/-
2. Conveyance(estimated 50 visits) ` 2,000/- `5,000/-
@ `100/- per visit
3. Special Diet `2,000/- `5,000/-
4. Pain and Suffering `10,000/- `25,000/-
5. Loss of Amenities - `50,000/-
6. Loss of Income ` 39,170/- ` 39,170/-R
Total ` 66,725/- ` 1,44,170/-
7. The overall compensation comes to ` 1,44,170/- . The amount in
excess of what has been awarded to the Appellant shall carry interest @7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
The insurance company shall be liable to pay the amount as held by the
Tribunal.
8. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited
with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks. Out of the
enhanced compensation, a sum of ` 25,000/- along with interest shall be
released to the Appellant forthwith. The rest of the amount shall be held in a
Fixed Deposit Receipt in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch for a period
of three years.
9. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 05, 2011/pst
