Delhi High Court
Tek Ram vs Ved Pal & Ors. on 20 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th April, 2012
+ MAC APP No.729/2010
TEK RAM
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate
Versus
VED PAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for
the Respondent No.3 Insurance
Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of
`1,10,892/- awarded for having suffered facture of right
clavicle and compound fracture of tibia in a motor accident
which occurred on 15.06.2007.
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Appellant remained under treatment for about a year, but no
compensation was awarded towards loss of income during that
period. The compensation of `10,000/- awarded on account of
conveyance and special diet and a sum of `15,000/- towards
pain and suffering was inadequate.
3. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas(Mrs.) and Ors,
(1994) 2 SCC 176, the Supreme Court observed that the
determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary
society "would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the
wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say
with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The
amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life
and limb in a free society in generous scales. At the same time,
a misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be
the guiding factor for determining the compensation. The
object of providing compensation is to place the claimant(s), to
the extent possible, in almost the same financial position, as
they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out
of misfortune that has befallen them.
4. After the accident, the Appellant was admitted in K.R. Hospital
during the period of 15.06.2007 to 25.06.2007 where spinal
anesthesia was given and nail was inserted to support tibia He
was again admitted in this very hospital from 17.05.2008 to
19.05.2008 for removal of the nail.
5. In his affidavit, the Appellant testified that he could not attend
to his work(of electrician) for a period of about one year. He
claimed his income to be `4,500/- per month. Although his
earnings was disputed, his testimony regarding duration of the
treatment and his inability to attend to his work was not
challenged in the cross-examination. In view of the
unchallenged testimony, I would award him compensation for
loss of income for one year, but would restrict it to the
minimum wages of a skilled worker on the date of the accident,
which were `3870/- per month. The compensation under this
head comes to `3870 X 12= `46,440/-.
6. Considering the period of hospitalization and the two surgeries
underwent by the Appellant and the duration of the treatment,
the compensation awarded towards conveyance and special
diet as also towards pain and suffering was too low. I enhance
the compensation towards conveyance and special diet from
`10,000/- to `20,000/- and for pain and suffering from
`15,000/- to `30,000/-.
7. The enhanced compensation of `71,440/- shall carry interest @
7.5%. The Respondent No.3 ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks,
which shall be released to the Appellant immediately on
deposit.
8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
9. The statutory amount of `25000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 20, 2012
pst
