Delhi High Court
Jai Ram Mahto vs Divesh & Ors. on 16 September, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 16.09.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No. 832/2011 & C.M. No. 17324/2011
JAI RAM MAHTO ...........Appellant
Through: Mr. F.K. Jha, Advocate
Versus
DIVESH & ORS. ..........Respondents
Through: None.
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. This appeal has impugned the Award dated 11.07.2011 whereby
a total sum of Rs.1,33,608/- had been granted to the petitioner. The
petitioner Jai Ram Mahto had suffered an accident on 16.10.2007 at
the main gate of Escort Hospital, Faridabad; he remained admitted in
Safdurjung hospital from 19.10.2007 to 23.10.2007 In this period, a
surgery was conducted upon him for fixing the multiple fractures
which he had suffered on his right leg in the accident. Even after
discharge, he was advised to continue with the dressing. Thereafter,
another surgery was conducted upon him to remove the steel plates
which had been implanted; he remained hospitalized for the second
period between 13.11.2007 to 23.11.2007 i.e. for a period of 10 days;
no medical record had been filed by the petitioner to substantiate any
further surgery undergone by him as has now been pleaded;
contention being that he had undergone two other surgeries; his
medical bills for a sum of Rs. 18,148/- had also been fully reimbursed.
2. The petitioner had not filed any record about his income or
educational qualification; minimum wages applicable to an unskilled
worker rounded off to Rs.3520/- had been taken into; he had been
granted „loss of income‟ for a period of three months; court had
noted that since the petitioner remained hospitalized for the second
time also up to 23.11.2007 and the accident having occurred on
16.10.2007 as also the fact the he was advised to visit OPD once in a
week after 23.11.2007, loss of wages for a period of three month had
been calculated on this count; a total sum of ` 10,560/- had been
awarded under this head. Under the head of „loss of earning capacity‟
followed the guideline laid down by the Apex Court in judgment of Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,(2011) 1 SCC 343, the correct formula was
applied and giving benefit of 8 % functional disability suffered by him,
a sum of ` 60,825.6/- had been awarded on this count; „conveyance
and special diet‟ had also been taken care; a sum of ` 14,000/- had
been awarded on this count. The Court had also taken judicial note
that the „pain and suffering‟ which such a victim would have suffered
for which a sum of ` 30,000/- had been granted; thus, a total sum of `
1,36,608/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum had been
granted in favour of the petitioner.
3. On no ground this award suffers from any infirmity. In fact, the
only submission urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that
under the head "pain and suffering" amount awarded is less. Keeping
in view the nature of the injury suffered by him, the period of his
hospitalization as also the fact that he had suffered 8% functional
disability, all these facts had well been taken note of.
4. The Courts time and again held that the compensation which is
to be awarded has to be "just and fair", it should not enure as a
bonanza; appeal is without merits. Impugned order suffers from no
infirmity.
Appeal is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011
rb
