Delhi High Court
Suresh Chand Sharma vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors. on 22 July, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 12th July, 2011
Judgment Delivered on: 22nd July, 2011
+ MAC APP. NO. 87/2010
SURESH CHAND SHARMA
...........Appellant
Through: Mr. Anuj Jain, Advocate.
Versus
SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS.
..........Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
Respondent No.3.
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.
1. The Award impugned before this Court is the Award dated
29.09.2009 by which compensation in the sum of Rs.8,95,000/-
has been awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. This clam petition has been preferred under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA Act). The claimant is the victim
himself; he had suffered injuries in an accident which had
occurred on 31.12.2006. Petitioner was driving his truck when
another truck hit him from the opposite side and pursuant to this
collision the petitioner sustained serious injuries. Offending
vehicle was admittedly insured with respondent No.3; it was
owned by respondent No.2; the insurance policy was also
admittedly valid on the date of the accident. Three issues had
been framed. The petitioner had examined five witnesses in his
evidence. No evidence was led by the respondents. The
aforenoted awarded amount was accordingly accorded.
3. In appeal, it has been contended by the petitioner/claimant
that he is entitled for the enhancement of the award amount as
the Tribunal has only considered his loss of income for a period of
four months; this is contrary to the documentary evidence which
shows that the petitioner was confined to bed for a longer period
i.e. for 16 months from the date of the accident; the future
prospects have also been ignored; non-pecuniary damages have
also not been considered in the correct perspective. No
compensation has also been awarded for the loss of future
treatment when there was cogent evidence to the said effect and
this is evident from the version of PW2. The Award suffers from
the aforenoted infirmities; the Award is liable to be enhanced.
4. Arguments have been rebutted. It is pointed out that the
impugned Award suffers from no infirmity and all the arguments
urged before this Court are unsupported by any evidence.
5. The salary of the petitioner in the sum of Rs.5,000/- per
month was proved from the salary certificate Ex.PW3/A which was
proved in the version of the PW3. Monthly income was thus
assessed as Rs.5,000/-. The indoor treatment of the patient was
admittedly between 01.01.2007 to 28.01.2007; however, keeping
in view, the nature of the injuries which were described by PW2
Dr. V.K. Jain which included a compound fracture dislocation right
ankle; compound comminuted fracture both bones left leg; facture
right medical maelleous; a period of 4 months was taken into
consideration to hold that during this period the petitioner was
not able to carry out his normal duties; the loss of income was
assessed for a period of four months. PW2 the doctor has also
admitted that the petitioner had remained admitted in the hospital
upto 28.01.2007; he had further stated that the treatment of the
petitioner is still going on but there was no evidence forthcoming
about the aforenoted treatment. Even before this Court, on a
specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he
concedes that no documentary evidence about the future
treatment meted out to the petitioner has been placed on record.
The bills for the purchase of medicines were lastly up to March
2007, but the nature of the medicines mentioned in the cash
memos are not indicative of any special treatment being meted
out to the petitioner by virtue of which his normal capacity was
hampered. Although PW2 had stated that the future surgery of the
patient which is required as a follow-up and it would cost
approximately Rs.25,000/- but as noted supra even before this
Court the appellant has admitted that there is no evidence
whatsoever on this count. In these circumstances claim for future
treatment had not been awarded; loss of income for a period of4
months was also in conformity with the documentary evidence.
6 PW5 had produced the disability certificate of the petitioner
which stated that the petitioner has suffered 60% disability qua
the entire body; patient had suffered intercondyler fracture left
with fracture both bones left leg malunited with stiff knee Rom (0-
80 degree) with shortening of 2 CM and compound fracture
dislocation right ankle with deformity of ankle with disuse
atrophy; 60% disability was permanent in nature. The age of the
petitioner at the time of accident was 37 years; multiplier of 16
was added to the admitted income of ` 5,000/- per month; taking
into account the 60% disability; the compensation awarded was as
follows:-
`5,000/-X12X16X60/100= `5,76,000/-
7 This computation has considered the disability of 60%
suffered by the victim to which the appropriate multiplier has
been added.
8 In JT 2010 (13) SC 38 Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another
relying upon the law relating to compensation awarded in the case
of permanent disability as held in the case of Arvind Kumar
Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. JT 2010 (10) SC 254 and
Yadava Kumar Vs. D.M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. JT 2010 (9)
SC 91 the formula for assessment of compensation payable in a
case of permanent disability had been laid down with reference to
three illustrations as contained in para 14 of the said judgment.
9 In the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 9 SCC
338 Grifan Vs. Sarbjeet Singh & Others where the petitioner had
suffered 80% disability; overall disability being 50%; income of
the deceased being `4,000/- per month which would have risen
further if the appellant had not suffered from this injury at the age
of 45 years, on this aspect an amount of `2 lacs was awarded.
10 The calculation arrived at by the Tribunal suffers from no
infirmity. Appeal has no merit.
11 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 22, 2011
neelam
