Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Partap Singh & Ors. on 14 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th December, 2011
+ MAC APP. 609/2010
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Abhishek, Adv.
Versus
PARTAP SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pinki Talukdar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Aggrieved by the grant of compensation of ` 4,34,203/-, the
Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has come in Appeal
before this Court. The compensation awarded is tabulated
hereunder: -
Sl. No. Head of Compensation Compensation granted by
the Tribunal
1. Medical expenses ` 635/-
2. Conveyance and special diet ` 10,000/-
3. Loss of income ` 21,696/-
4. Future loss of income ` 1,51,872/-
5. Pain, sufferings & Permanent ` 2,50,000/-
disability
Total ` 4,34,203/-
2. The only ground of challenge is the award of ` 2,50,00/- made
under the head of pain and suffering and permanent disability
suffered by the Respondent.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
award of ` 2,50,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages is
exorbitant and excessive. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in G. Gnanam @ Gnanamoorthy v.
Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2009) 2 SCC 71 where
the overall compensation of ` 1,00,000/- was awarded including
damages of ` 15,000/- towards pain & suffering, ` 50,000/-
towards permanent disability and ` 15,000/- towards loss of
amenities of life. The learned counsel for the Appellant also
referred to Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh and Ors.,
(2009) 1 SCC 54 where overall compensation of ` 1,12,000/-
was awarded including damages to the extent of ` 30,000/- for
pain & agony and ` 15,000/- towards loss of amenities and
discomfort.
4. In this case the accident took place in the year 2008. In G.
Gnanam (supra) the accident took place in the year 1995.
Similarly in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar (supra) the accident took
place in the year 1999. Apart from this there was a disability of
15% in the right hand, 15% in the right elbow, 15% in the right
shoulder and 20% in the right wrist and finger. Thus, the total
disability was 60% in respect of the right upper limb.
5. In the case in hand the Respondent Claimant was first admitted
to LNJP Hospital where surgical intervention was carried out
and he was discharged on 17.01.2008. Then he was readmitted
in the Hospital for second surgery on 28.03.2008 and was
discharged after about a month on 23.04.2008. The Respondent
Claimant suffered crush injury on the left leg, most of his left
foot and ankle joints and some portions of left leg was amputed.
The Tribunal instead respect of awarding non-pecuniary
damages under different heads granted lump sum damages of `
2,50,000/-. If I award a sum of ` 50,000/- towards
disfigurement, ` 75,000/- towards pain and suffering and `
1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and expectation in life, the
total sum comes to ` 2,25,000/-. With the kind of permanent
disability suffered by the Respondent Claimant he would also
need a special shoe to walk and he would always walk with
difficulty. Though, the compensation awarded was a little
liberal, it cannot be termed exorbitant and excessive. I would
not like to interfere with the award of ` 2,50,000/- under the
non-pecuniary heads in the facts & circumstances of the present
case.
6. The Appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly
dismissed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 14, 2011
hs
