Delhi High Court
Dharamvir Nanda vs Pritam Lal& Ors. on 16 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16th April, 2012
+ FAO 430/1998
DHARAMVIR NANDA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
PRITAM LAL& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 23,500/-
awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries
in an accident which occurred on 10.01.1979 (almost 33 years
back).
2. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the
Appellant suffered a head injury. He suffers fits of epilepsy.
He spent a considerable amount on his treatment which was
continuing even at the time of filing of the Petition, yet the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
awarded only a sum of ` 5,000/- towards purchase of medicines
and for treatment. It is contended that the compensation of `
5,000/- awarded for pain and agony was very meager.
3. The Claims Tribunal dealt with each head for grant of
compensation as under:-
"18. In his petition, the petr. Has alleged that he had
received a head injury, a cut wound on his left arm below
shoulder, injury on his left leg as well as left lower leg
and left foot. He had also received injuries all over his
body. He had received a fracture in his left leg. After the
accident he was removed to Dr. R.M.L.Hospital where he
was treated as an indoor patient. It is also alleged that
the petr. Had to take leave from his office from 10.1.79 to
2.2.79 and again from 14.4.79 to 2.5.79. The petr. Was
taking a special diet at a cost of ` 20/30 per day; a sum
of ` 1150/- had been spent on conveyance by the petr.
and his relatives. Even though, the petr. Did not spell
out the expenses incurred by him on his treatment, he
claimed a sum of ` 2,00,000/- as compensation.
19. In his testimony on oath, Dharamvir Nanda, the
petr. Claimed that he had remained on leave from his
office for about 78 days. The petr. was drawing a salary
of ` 1378/- p.m. after his pay was revised in accordance
with the recommendation of the pay commission. The
petitioner needs to be compensated for the loss of salary
suffered by him as he was forced to take leave for 78
days due to this accident. I am, therefore, to inclined to
grant a sum of ` 3,500/- to the petr. on account of loss of
salary. The petr. had claimed that he had spent a sum of
` 5,000/- to ` 7,000/- for getting pvt. Consultation and
had spent a sum of ` 100 to ` 150/- on purchase of
medicines which were not readily available with the
dispensary. The petr. has not filed bills for the pvt.
consultation allegedly taken by him due to the injuries
received by him in the accident. However, considering
the fact that sometimes, these bills are not kept by the
patients or are not made easily available, I am inclined
to grant a sum of ` 5,000/- to the petr. on account of
expenses incurred by him on his treatment/purchase of
medicines. The petr. has claimed that he had spent a sum
of ` 15,000/- to ` 16,000/- on conveyance. Again, petr.
Has not given the bills on this account. In the petition
which was filed on 17.5.79 it was alleged by the petr. that
he had spent a sum of ` 1150/- on conveyance which
included the conveyance charges on his
attendants/relations in the hospital. It is, therefore, clear
that the petr. has exaggerated while stating the amount
spent by him on his conveyance. However, considering
that the petr's treatment had continued for a
considerable time, I am inclined to grant a sum of `
5,000/- to the petr. on account of conveyance. This will
also take into account the charges on conveyance which
he might have to incur in future.
20. The petr. has further testified that he had taken
a special diet and had spent considerable sum on the
same. Again in the petition it was mentioned that the
petr. was spending a sum of ` 20/30 per day on his
special diet. Keeping in view the circumstances and facts
of the case, I am inclined to grant a sum of ` 5,000/- to
the petr. on account of special diet. The petitioner had
not suffered any permanent disability; he had not
suffered any loss in his service or promotion. A case for
special damages is not made out. However, considering
the injuries suffered by the petr. and its duration, I am
inclined to grant a sum of ` 5,000/- to the petr. on
account of pain and agony suffered by him in this
accident. Thus in all, I grant him the following sums
under the differing heads:-
i. Loss of Salary ` 3,500/-
ii. Expenses on treatment/purchase ` 5,000/-
of medicines
iii. Conveyance ` 5,000/-
iv. Special diet ` 5,000/-
v. For pain and agony ` 5,000/-
` 23,500/-
4. Thus, it would be evident that apart from a fracture of the left
foot there was no serious injury. Although, it is claimed that
on account of a head injury, the Appellant has become
epileptic. The Appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove
that he suffered any neurological disorder or started getting fits
of epilepsy on account of head injury suffered by him. The
Appellant was compensated for loss of salary; expenses for
treatment; purchase of medicines; conveyance and special diet
even in the absence of any specific evidence. It has to be borne
in mind that this accident took place in the year 1979 and the
compensation was to be awarded on the value of rupee and the
scale as prevalent at that time. The Appellant was an Indoor
Patient at Dr. R.M.L. Hospital for 23 days and thereafter he
remained under treatment as an OPD Patient. Considering the
nature of injuries, the period of hospitalization and the duration
of treatment, the compensation of ` 5,000/- awarded towards
pain and suffering was definitely on the lower side. The same
is enhanced to ` 15,000/-.
5. The Claimant was declined towards grant of any interest during
the pendency of the Claim Petition on the ground that the
Appellant himself was responsible for the delay as he took 16
years for completion of his evidence.
6. The Appellant would thus be entitled to an interest on the
enhanced amount of ` 10,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of the award by the Claims Tribunal i.e. 30.04.1998 upto
the date of deposit of the amount in this Court.
7. Respondent No.4 New India Assurance Company Limited is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with
interest within a period of six weeks with the Registrar General
of this Court. The compensation amount shall be immediately
released in favour of the Appellant on deposit of the amount by
the Insurance Company.
8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 16, 2012
vk
