Lov Kad . vs Mukesh & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2741 Del

$~9
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision:26th April, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.671/2011
         LOV KAD                                ..... Appellant
                             Through:    Mr. R.S. Mahla, Advocate
                        Versus

         MUKESH & ORS                                  ..... Respondents
                             Through:    Mr. Rajat Brar, Advocate for
                                         Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Advocate
                                         for the Respondent No.3

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                     JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 1,33,092/-

awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 18.06.2007.

2. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital. He was then shifted to Max Hospital, Pitampura. The Appellant was found to have suffered head injuries, compound fracture of distal tibia and fibula, X-ray spine at L-2 level. A C.T. scan done in Max Health Care revealed head injuries consisting of a well defined hypodense area suggestive of infarct involving left occipital region and superior surface of cerebellum and a tiny area of infarct was also evident in B/L thalmi.

3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:

i) The Appellant suffered very serious injuries resulting into permanent disability on account of the head injuries. He is unable to discharge his functions since the date of the accident. The Appellant has not been awarded any compensation towards loss of earning capacity.

ii) The compensation awarded towards loss of income is very less. The Claims Tribunal, it is contended, erred in taking the minimum wages to award the compensation for loss of income, although, the Appellant was a well qualified computer programmer and was earning `10,000/- per month by private tuitions.

iii) The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is very low.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company argues that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. It is urged that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal rightly accepted the minimum wages of a graduate to award the compensation for loss of income.

5. The Appellant was discharged from Max Healthcare, Pitampura after two days of the treatment. The right leg was put in POP. No evidence has been adduced by the Appellant to show the

impact of the head injuries on his brain, therefore, there is no clear evidence that the Appellant took any treatment and remained under treatment for the brain injuries after his discharge from the Max Healthcare.

6. 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. `40,000/- awarded towards the pain and suffering seems to be just and reasonable in view of the nature and site of injuries and the duration of the treatment in the hospital.

7. On his qualification and income, the Appellant testified as under:

"I had qualified the National Apprenticeship from National Council for Vocational Training, vide National Apprenticeship Certificate No.137147 qualified in October, 1989. Copy of said Certificate is Ex.PW1/11.

I had qualified the Integrated Diploma Course in Computer Programming and Systems Management from Kurukshetra College, at New Delhi-110001, for the period 15.7.1989 to 14.7.1990. Copy of same is Ex.PW1/12.

My provisional Certificate from School of

Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education, University of Delhi No.09781 dt. 13.2.1991 is Ex.PW1/13.

I used to work with Allavi Projects Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. A-1/312, (Basement) Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi, as Computer analyst Programmer and Liaison Assistant since Ist July, 1992 on consolidated salary of Rs.3,000/- per month with travelling allowance of Rs.350/- per month extra as on 1.7.1992. Same is Ex.PW1/14.

Now from coaching etc. my monthly income is not less than 10,000/-.

I have qualified Web Administration Course from The Academic Council of Software Technology Group International Ltd., vide Certificate dt. 7.8.2000. Same is Ex.PW1/15."

8. The Appellant's testimony with regard to his previous employment with Delhi Press, Jhandewalan and his income from coaching @ `10,000/- per month was not disputed in the cross-examination. In the absence of any rebuttal and as per the Appellant's qualification, his income ought to have been accepted as `10,000/- per month. Thus, the compensation for loss of income for a period of six months is, therefore, increased from `25,380/- to `60,000/-.

9. As far as compensation towards medical treatment is concerned, all the bills towards treatment and purchase of medicines were considered by the Claims Tribunal and a compensation of `53,092/- was granted. It is urged by the learned counsel for

the Appellant that some of the bills were not kept by the Appellant. His expenditure on treatment was over `1 Lakh. There is no evidence in this regard produced by the Appellant. If all the treatment papers and a large number of bills were preserved, I see no reason why any bill would get left.

10. No other contention is raised on behalf of the Appellant.

11. In the circumstances, the compensation is enhanced by `34,620/- (60,000/- - `25380/-) which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till its payment as granted by the Claims Tribunal.

12. The Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks, which shall be released immediately on deposit.

13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 26, 2012 pst