Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar vs M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & ... on 27 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:27th April, 2012
+ FAO. No.414/2000
SATISH KUMAR
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate
Versus
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for the
Respondent No.1 Insurance Co.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of
`40,000/- awarded to him for having suffered fracture of bone
of left leg in an accident which occurred on 26.09.1987.
2. In order to establish his case, the Appellant examined ten
witnesses. Most of the witnesses examined by him are on the
factum and the extent of injuries suffered by him.
3. Since there is no Appeal by the owner, driver or the insurer, I
am not to go into the finding of negligence which has become
final between the parties.
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Appellant underwent treatment for a period of one year. The
compensation of `10,000/- awarded towards special diet,
`10,000/- towards loss of income for one year and `20,000/- on
account of non-pecuniary damages is inadequate.
5. The Appellant proved on record the OPD slips Exs PW9/1 to
PW9/9 which go to show that the Appellant was under
treatment for about one year. PW10 Dr. A.K. Singh, the
Consultant of Orthopaedics, Safdarjang Hospital was examined
by the Appellant on 26.09.1987. His testimony that although
his fracture had united, but he suffered shortening of his left leg
and limping and restriction of the movement of knee and ankle
remained unchallenged. Although the Appellant claimed loss
of income for one year to be `36,000/-, but he was silent about
his monthly or annual income. In the A.Y.1988-89 any income
beyond `18,000/- was taxable. Thus, the Claims Tribunal
rightly took the income of the Appellant to be `800/- per month
to award a compensation of `10,000/- towards loss of income
for one year. Similarly, the compensation of `10,000/- towards
conveyance and special diet was just and reasonable in view of
the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1987. But, at the
same time the compensation of `20,000/- towards non-
pecuniary damages was on the lower side considering that the
Appellant suffered permanent disability. I am conscious of the
fact that the extent of the permanent disability has not been
given, perhaps the Appellant did not consider it necessary or
was not advised to obtain a permanent disability certificate.
6. The Appellant was aged 24 years at the time of the incident. In
the circumstances, I would award a sum of `10,000/- towards
pain and suffering, `10,000/- towards disfigurement and
`25,000/- towards loss of amenities and permanent disability.
7. There is an overall enhancement of `25,000/- which shall carry
interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the filing of the
Petition till the date of the award i.e. 11.07.2000 and @ 7.5%
per annum from 12.07.2000 till its deposit in this Court.
8. The Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch within six weeks in the name of the Appellant.
9. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
10. Order Dasti to the counsel for the Respondent Insurance
Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 27, 2012
pst
