Vinita vs Denesh Singh & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6013 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Reserved on: 2nd December, 2011
                                   Pronounced on: 08th December, 2011
+       MAC APP. 823/2010

        VINITA                                        ..... Appellant
                     Through:     Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava, Adv.

                                 Versus

        DENESH SINGH & ORS.                ..... Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for R-3.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                           JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. This appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the Appellant Vinita aged 7 years at the time of accident, which took place on 31.02.2003. The Appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% in respect of the left lower limb and the left foot had to be amputated. It is averred that the compensation of ` 3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low and inadequate considering the permanent disability suffered by the small child, loss of amenities in life and marriage prospects.

2. The Tribunal while computing the compensation relied on a decision of High Court of Karnataka in Iranna v. Mohd. Ali Khadarsab Mulla and Anr., 2004 ACJ 1936 wherein similar circumstances a compensation of ` 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, ` 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and ` 50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects was granted. Though, the 40% disability was with respect to the left lower limb yet, the compensation was awarded towards loss of earning capacity, taking this disability with respect to the whole body, as there could not be any evidence at that time (as the injured was aged 7 years at the time of accident) as to the loss of earning capacity, if any. The overall compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

3. The appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 08, 2011 hs