Sh.Ravi Kant Isshar vs Sh.Dharmender & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4334 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 05.9.2011

+                  MAC APPEAL No.86/2011


SH.RAVI KANT ISSHAR                             ........Appellant
                   Through:          Mr.J.S.Kanwar, Advocate,

                   Versus

SH.DHARMENDER & ORS.                            ..........Respondent
                 Through:            Mr.D.K.Jain, Advocate for the
                                     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. (Oral)

1. The award impugned is the Award dated 15.9.2010 vide

which a total compensation in the sum of `32,000/- had been

awarded in favour of the petitioner who was the victim of an

accident which had taken place on 13.6.2005. Contention of the

petitioner is that he had suffered a serious injury; even after the

accident he had been accorded treatment at Muzafar Nagar; he

has filed bills to the said effect; the Tribunal has not considered

the bills in the correct perspective; he had exhibited these bills;

even on the non-pecuniary damages the compensation awarded is

on the lower side. Record shows that the victim had suffered an

accident on 13.6.2005. Neither in his claim petition and nor in

evidence by way of affidavit he has stated that he had been

accorded treatment at Muzzafar Nagar. This is especially

relevant in view of the fact that the affidavit in evidence has been

filed much later i.e. March 2009 and the treatment had allegedly

been meted out to him in September 2007. There is no reason as

to why this fact did not find mention in his affidavit which he had

filed later in time. In fact in this affidavit medical bills Ex.PW-1/D

had been adverted to. However, the record shows that no such

bills Ex.PW-1/D had been exhibited or is on the record. In this

view of the matter the Tribunal had rightly rejected this

contention of the petitioner. The second contention of the

petitioner is that the damages awarded under the non-pecuniary

heads i.e. "pain and sufferings" which has been calculated at

`3,000/- is also on the lower side. Record shows that the

petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability; even as per

the record there is no document to substantiate the submission of

the petitioner that he had remained in hospital between 13.6.2005

upto 20.9.2005 which was his contention. The impugned Award

had in fact noted that the victim remained as an outdoor patient

and was not admitted in the hospital, this was as per the OPD

slips filed by him. However keeping in view the fact that the

petitioner was an insurance agent and he had suffered a fracture

of the right femur bone which had adversely effected his activity

during this period when he was confined to bed (which the

Tribunal has noted as two months for which loss of income had

been awarded at `10,000/-) as such compensation awarded under

the head of "pain and suffering" in these circumstances is

enhanced from `3000/- to `10,000/-. No other modification is

called for in the impugned Award. Petition is disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 nandan