Delhi High Court
Neeraj Rana vs Sandeep & Ors on 1 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1st August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 151/2012
NEERAJ RANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dwapayan Gupta, Adv.
versus
SANDEEP & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Onakar Pandey, Adv. for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of ` 61,684/-
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims
Tribunal) in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries
in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 29.11.2009.
2. The finding on negligence is not disputed by the driver, owner
and the Insurer. Thus, the same has attained finality.
3. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is tabulated
hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by
the Claims
No. Tribunal
1. Treatment Expenses `33,872/-
2. Pain and Suffering ` 10,000/-
3. Special Diet and Conveyance ` 2,000/-
4. Loss of Income ` 15,812/-
Total ` 61,684/-
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that
considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and
duration of treatment, the compensation awarded is very
meager.
5. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri. Being
dissatisfied with the treatment, the Appellant got himself shifted
to Satya Bhama Hospital, Nangloi, Delhi where he remained
admitted from 29.11.2009 to 06.12.2009 i.e. for eight days.
6. The Appellant suffered fracture on fourth metatarsal on his right
hand and underwent procedure in Satya Bhama Hospital on
29.11.2009. The Appellant filed his Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and
entered the witness box as PW-1. He deposed that he was
working as a driver on RTV owned by Himanshu Arora. He
was getting a salary of `400/- per day and `50/- per day as diet
charges. He stated that he could not attend his duties for about
six months. He had also to engage an Attendant at the rate of
`4,000/- per month for six months. He claimed to have spent
`30,000/- on conveyance and `40,000/- on special diet.
7. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) enjoins
the Claims Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation.
8. 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.
9. The Appellant's testimony that he was working as a driver on
RTV owned by Himanshu Arora was not challenged in cross-
examination. It is true that the Appellant did not produce any
evidence with regard to the salary being paid to him yet, his
driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle was proved on
record as Ex.PW-1/1.
10. In the year 2009, I would assume salary of a driver of a
commercial vehicle to be at least `6,000/- per month.
Considering that the Appellant suffered fracture of fourth
metatarsal he would not be able to attend his work as a driver
for at least four months. The compensation of `15,812/-
awarded towards loss of income is thus enhanced to `24,000/-
(6,000/- x 4).
11. Similarly, the compensation of `2,000/- awarded towards
conveyance and special diet needs to be raised to `5,000/- each.
12. Considering the period of hospitalization, long duration of
treatment, the compensation of `10,000/- awarded towards pain
and suffering is raised to `20,000/-.
13. In view of the injuries suffered, the Appellant must not have
been in a position to take care of himself for a period of at least
one month. Even if the Appellant did not engage any Attendant
and the gratuitous services were rendered by some or other of
his relations, the Appellant is entitled to a suitable
compensation towards gratuitous services (Delhi Transport
Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558). Thus, I
would award compensation of `4,000/- towards gratuitous
services.
14. The compensation awarded by this Court is tabulated as under:-
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by this
heads Court
No.
1. Treatment Expenses `33,872/-
2. Pain and Suffering ` 20,000/-
3. Special Diet and Conveyance ` 10,000/-
4. Loss of Income ` 24,000/-
5. Gratuitous Services ` 4,000/-
Total ` 91,872/-
15. The overall compensation is enhanced from `61,684/- to
`91,872/-.
16. The enhanced compensation of ` 30,188/- shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its
payment.
17. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be
deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks and shall
be released in favour of the Appellant.
18. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
19. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 01, 2012
vk
