Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Jagjeet Singh & Ors. on 7 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.603/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
Versus
JAGJEET SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay, Advocate for the
Respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.1,76,551/- awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in favour of
the First Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 31.03.2008.
2. Since the Appellant Insurance Company was granted recovery rights
against the owner of the vehicle, notice of the Appeal was issued only to
the First Respondent(the Claimant) with regard to the quantum of
compensation.
3. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal has not been
challenged. My task is only to go into the question of quantum of
compensation.
4. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,76,551/- which is
tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by
various heads the Claims
No. Tribunal
1. Pain and Suffering Rs.65,000/-
2. Loss of Earning for 5 Rs.45,000/-
Months @ Rs.9000/- per
month
3. Expenses towards Rs.56,551/-
Medical Bills
4. Conveyance and Special Rs.10,000/-
Diet(without bills)
Total Rs.1,76,551/-
5. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:
(i) There was no cogent evidence with regard to the salary
earned by the First Respondent and the period of
recovery.
(ii) The compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded towards pain
and suffering is on the higher side.
6. With regard to his income, the First Respondent filed his affidavit
Ex.PW1/A. He testified that he was working as a salesman with the
Mecom Pneumatics(India) a company carrying on the business of
Pneumatics Parts and was getting a salary of Rs.9,000/- per month. The
First Respondent was cross-examined at length with regard to his
employment. Although, the appointment letter was not placed on record,
but his testimony that he was working with The Mecom Pneumatics
(India) could not be discredited despite lengthy cross-examination in this
behalf. He gave the details of the company and various other employees
working therein. The Insurance Company did not produce any evidence
to rebut his salary certificate Ex.PW1/4. In the circumstances, I am
inclined to accept the Respondent No.1's testimony regarding his
employment and salary.
7. The First Respondent suffered fracture of both bone of left leg.
Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri
Hospital. He was admitted in Ram Lal Kundal Lal Orthopedic Hospital
on three occasions firstly from 01.04.2008 to 03.04.2008, then
19.06.2008 and then from 09.07.2008 to 12.07.2008. Thus, taking into
account the fact that the First Respondent was an indoor patient after
three months of his suffering the compound fracture, he must have taken
at least five months to recover from the injuries and to reach his place of
employment on day-to-day basis with some support. The Claims
Tribunal was justified in awarding loss of income for five months.
8. It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money 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 at home and the
duration of the treatment. Considering that the First Respondent had to
be admitted to the Hospital three times for surgery/procedures, long
duration of his confinement to home, I would not like to interfere with the
discretion of the Claims Tribunal in awarding a compensation of
Rs.65,000/- towards pain and suffering. The compensation is just and
reasonable.
9. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference. The Appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
10. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
11. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2012
pst
