Guddu vs Girdhari & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 5816 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of decision: 29th November, 2011

+       MAC APP. 225/2011

        GUDDU                                       ..... Appellant
                    Through:     Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv.

                                Versus

        GIRDHARI & ORS.                            ..... Respondents
                 Through:        Mr. B. K. Sharma, Adv.

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of accident, which took place on 27.04.2005. The Appellant suffered 14% disability in respect of his left lower limb i.e. amputation of the toe. The Tribunal took the minimum wages of the Appellant at ` 3,045/- per month, deducted 1/3 towards miscellaneous expenses and by applying a multiplier of 17 awarded a compensation of ` 56,712/-.

2. The total compensation awarded is extracted hereunder: -

         Cost of treatment                             ` 20,000/-





          Conveyance & Special diet                       ` 10,000/-

         Pain and Sufferings                             ` 10,000/-

         Loss of future Income                           ` 56,712/-


         Actual Loss of Income                           ` 21,315/-

                                                 Total ` 1,18,027/-

3. As per Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar no evidence as to functional disability was brought on record. The Appellant would not suffer any functional disability on account of chopping of the toe.

4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the compensation of ` 10,000/- awarded on account of pain and suffering was on the lower side. The Appellant was not granted any compensation for disfigurement and loss of marriage prospects. An amount of ` 56,712/- awarded towards loss of earning capacity was really towards non-pecuniary damages like disfigurement and loss of marriage prospects. The amount of ` 10,000/- awarded for pain and suffering, however, needs enhancement to ` 20,000/-. Thus, the Appellant is entitled to a further sum of ` 10,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount. Respondents No.2 National Insurance Co. Ltd. is to

make the payment within six weeks by depositing the enhanced amount with the Registrar General of this Court, which shall be released to the Appellant forthwith.

5. By impugned order the Tribunal granted recovery rights to the Insurance Company on the ground that there was breach of terms of the policy as the driver had a fake licence. The finding was not challenged by the owner and the driver. Hence, the Insurance Company shall have the right to recover the enhanced compensation from the owner i.e. respondent No.1.

6. The appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 29, 2011 hs