Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar vs Gopal Shah & Anr on 23 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd April, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 440/2007
SUNIL KUMAR ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
Versus
GOPAL SHAH & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv.
for R-2.
Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Sunil Kumar seeks enhancement of
compensation of `90,000/- awarded to him for having suffered
injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 20.07.2004.
2. Rishabh Kumar, Appellant's son also suffered injuries in this
very accident. The Appellant and said Rishabh Kumar were
removed to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital where Rishabh Kumar
was declared brought dead.
3. The Appellant suffered multiple fractures on his right hand,
right thigh, ribs besides other injuries. He took treatment from
Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital. He suffered 20% disability in
respect of his right hand because of fracture of both bones of the
forearm with restricted movement of the elbow and the wrist.
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
while awarding compensation of `90,000/- including a sum of `
50,000/- for future treatment for removal of the plate, fastened
the composite negligence to the extent of 75% and 25%
respectively vis-a-viz the driver and owner of the TSR No. DL-
1RE-6738 and the driver and the owner of the Truck/Trolla No.
HR-38-B-5445. Since the TSR driver Dalip Kumar was found
to be not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident, the Claims Tribunal granted recovery rights to the
National Insurance Company (Respondent No. 2) for recovering
compensation from the owner of the TSR Gopal Shah,
Respondent No.1.
5. The finding on composite negligence has not been challenged
by the driver, owners and the Insurers. The recovery rights
granted to Respondent No. 2 against the owner of the TSR have
not been challenged by the Insured. That finding having
become final, I need not go into that question.
6. The exact duration of the treatment is not known as no
documentary evidence in this respect was placed on record by
the Appellant. The Appellant took treatment from Parnami
Orthopaedic Hospital. It is admitted that the amount paid on
treatment was reimbursed to him by his employer. Thus, he was
not awarded any compensation towards amount spent on
treatment.
7. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the
Appellant:-
(i) The compensation of `10,000/- awarded on account of
Pain and Suffering was too meager considering the nature
of injuries suffered.
(ii) The compensation of `20,000/- awarded towards Loss of
Amenities in Life was also very low, particularly when
the Appellant suffered permanent disability in respect of
his right hand to the extent of 20%.
8. The Appellant did not produce any evidence on account of loss
of income and the injuries suffered. Perhaps his earning was not
affected as the employer had taken care of the same.
9. It is difficult to measure in terms of money the Pain and
Suffering which has been suffered by the Claimant on account
of serious injuries caused to him in a motor accident. Since the
compensation is required to be paid for Pain and Suffering an
attempt must be made to award compensation which may have
some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent
by the victim of a motor accident. For this purpose, the Claims
Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury;
the parts of the body where the injuries were sustained;
surgeries (if any) underwent by the victim; confinement in the
hospital and the duration of the treatment.
10. As stated above, in this case there is no evidence as to how long
he remained an Indoor Patient in Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital,
Delhi and for how long he was an Outdoor Patient. At the same
time, it was established that there were multiple fractures on
right hand, right thigh, fractures on ribs and other injuries. The
Appellant also suffered permanent disability to the extent of
20% in respect of his right hand and an implant was fixed in his
right hand which was to be removed.
11. The compensation of `10,000/- awarded on account of Pain and
Suffering in spite of the absence of any evidence as to the
period of hospitalization and the period of treatment was very
low. I enhance the same to `30,000/-.
12. The Appellant continued to work with the same employer.
There is no adverse impact on his salary. The Appellant did not
produce any evidence that he had lost any income on account of
the duration of his treatment or he lost any leave. But, at the
same time, considering the nature of injuries suffered by him,
the amount of `20,000/- awarded towards Loss of Amenities
and Loss of Expectations is enhanced to `60,000/-.
13. The compensation awarded is reassessed as under:-
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded by
the Claims
No. various heads Tribunal this Court
1. Pain and Suffering ` 10,000/- ` 30,000/
2. Loss of Amenities and `20,000/- `60,000/-
Loss of Expectations
3. Conveyance & Special `10,000/- `10,000/-
Diet
4. Medical Expenses ` 50,000/- `50,000/-
Total `90,000/- ` 1,50,000/-
14. Hence the compensation is enhanced from `90,000/- to `
1,50,000/-.
15. The Claims Tribunal did not grant any interest on the amount of
compensation awarded. The Claims Tribunal was justified in
not granting interest on the amount of `50,000/- which was
towards future treatment, yet, interest on rest of the amount
ought to have been granted from the date of filing of the
petition. In the circumstances, I award interest @ 7.5% on the
amount of `1,00,000/- from the date of filing of the Petition till
its deposit and interest at the same rate on the amount of
`50,000/- from the date of the award till the amount was
deposited.
16. The Insurance Companies are directed to deposit their
respective shares of the enhanced compensation along with
interest in the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi in the
name of the Appellant after deduction of TDS if any, on
interest.
17. Since this accident took place in the year 2004, the amount shall
be released immediately on deposit to the Appellant.
18. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2012
vk
