Delhi High Court
Shri Shamsher Singh vs Shri Jagdish Kumar & Others on 30 September, 2011
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC APPEAL No.147/2006
Reserved on: 21.09.2011
Pronounced on: 30.09.2011
SHRI SHAMSHER SINGH ...... Appellant
Through: Nemo
Versus
SHRI JAGDISH KUMAR & OTHERS ...... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? No
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 18th
August, 2005 of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal ('the
Tribunal' for short) which came to be passed in the claim petition
No. 324/2003 (Old No.398/2003) filed by the appellant for seeking
compensation on account of injuries which were sustained by him
in the road accident which took place on 26th April, 2003 when he
was going on his two wheeler scooter and was hit by a truck
bearing registration No.HP-14-2565 being driven by respondent
No.1 in rash and negligent manner. The said truck was stated to
be owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.
The Tribunal awarded total compensation of `3,16,327/- which
was made up on account of pain and suffering `30,000/-,
medicines and medical treatment `28,930/-, special diet and
conveyance `20,000/-, employing attendant `24,000/- loss of
enjoyment, amenities and general damages `50,000/-, loss of
expectancy of life `20,000/- and on account of loss of leaves
`1,43,397/-.
2. The impugned award is assailed by the appellant alleging
the compensation to be on lower side. The appellant has prayed
for enhancement of compensation on different counts. The main
grievance of the appellant is that he suffered disability to the
extent of 55 per cent which lowered his earning capacity and
future prospects of earning. It is also alleged that the
compensation awarded on account of loss of enjoyment of
amenities and general damages, on account of loss of expectancy
of life, pain and sufferings etc. are on lower side.
3. The appellant was aged about 56 years and posted as
Inspector in Delhi Police and getting `14,000/- per month as
salary at the time of accident. After the accident, he was
admitted in St. Stephens' Hospital where he remained admitted
from 26.04.2003 to 09.07.2003. A sum of `1,70,165/- was the
amount of medical expenses of the hospital. The injuries suffered
by the appellant were diagnosed as crush injuries. An operation
was performed upon the appellant and a fixation was inserted in
his leg. As per the appellant, his leg shortened by five inches and
he could walk only with the help of a walker and a specially made
shoe. He stated to have spent `2,00,000/- on his treatment in the
hospital. Admittedly, a sum of `1,76,000/- was reimbursed to him
by his department. The appellant had submitted few bills totaling
to `28,930/- of expenditure towards medical treatment which
remained to be reimbursed by his department. The Tribunal
awarded compensation of this amount accepting the same to be
correct. A sum of `30,000/- was awarded on account of pain and
suffering. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the
appellant and the period of hospitalization, a sum of `50,000/-
ought to have been awarded to the appellant on account of pain
and suffering. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to the
enhanced sum of `20,000/- on this count.
4. As noted above, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
`20,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, which again, to
my mind, seems to be on lower side. Keeping in view the period
of hospitalization and the nature of injuries, the compensation is
assessed as `20,000/- each on account of special diet and
conveyance and accordingly the appellant would be entitled to
additional sum of `20,000/- on this count.
5. I do not see any infirmity in awarding `24,000/- to the
appellant on account of employing attendant.
6. However, award of compensation of `50,000/- to the
appellant by the Tribunal on account of loss of enjoyment of
amenities and general damages is also seen to be on lower side.
Likewise, compensation of `20,000/- on account of loss of
expectancy of life is also on lower side. Keeping in view the
nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the period of
hospitalization, I would assess the compensation on account loss
of enjoyment of amenities and general damages to be `70,000/-
and `50,000/- on account of loss of expectancy of life.
Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to enhanced
compensation of `20,000/- and `30,000/- respectively on these
two counts.
I do not see any infirmity in awarding compensation
`1,43,397/- to the appellant on account of loss of leaves.
7. In view of the above discussions, the appellant is found to
be entitled to enhanced compensation of `90,000/-, which
respondent No. 3, being the insurer, would be liable to pay.
8. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to pay the
enhanced compensation of `90,000/- within 30 days of this order
failing which interest @7.5% would be payable to the appellant
from the date of this order till the date of realization.
9. The appeal stands disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
September 30, 2011
awanish
