Dr. Om Parkash Arora vs Dinesh Chawla & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 107 Del

$~6
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision:5th January, 2012
+       FAO NO.108/1995

        DR. OM PARKASH ARORA             ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal with Ms.
                              Suman N. Rawat, Adv.

                    versus

        DINESH CHAWLA & ORS                         ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa with
                                        Mr. P. Nand, Adv. for R-4.

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation for having suffered injuries, which took place on 05.09.1986. The Appellant was immediately taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, which he left against medical advice and got himself admitted in Tirath Ram Shah Hospital on 06.09.1986. The Appellant was operated upon for fracture of both bones left leg and plating was done under general anesthesia. As per the documents filed on record, the Appellant attended OPD at Safdarjung Hospital on 04.12.1986. It was alleged that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.1

driver of the offending vehicle No.DBA 3502, which was owned by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and was insured by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No.4. A claim for compensation of Rs.12,22,000/- was made.

2. During inquiry before the Tribunal the Appellant himself appeared as PW-5 and deposed that he remained bed-ridden for about 2 years and there was loss of income @ Rs.5,000/- per month. He deposed that he engaged one attendant to help him for 2 years and paid him Rs.1,500/- per month. No medical evidence was produced by the Appellant to prove that on account of the injuries and the treatment given to the Appellant, he would not be in a position to work for a period of 2 years. In the absence of filing any income tax record to show that the Appellant was paying income tax, the Tribunal took the Appellant's monthly income to be Rs.2,000/- and awarded a compensation of Rs.48,000/- for loss of income. Any income beyond Rs.15,000/- in the year 1986 was taxable. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker in the year 1986 were Rs.414/-. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.12,000/- for engaging an attended @ Rs.500/- per month for 2 years i.e. Rs.12,000/-. The Appellant claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to have been spent on his treatment. He placed on record photocopies of the bills for Rs.7,000/- only. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for his treatment as also for special diet and conveyance.

3. The Appellant did not produce any evidence of any permanent disability nor was it the Appellant's claim that he suffered permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities/ enjoyment of life. In addition, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards miscellaneous expenses. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated hereunder: -

          Sl. No. Compensation Head                          Amount (`)

          1.        Pain & Sufferings                                20,000

          2.        Expenses incurred in treatment,                  50,000
                    conveyance, diet, etc.

          3.        Loss of enjoyment of life.                       15,000

          4.        Loss of income for 2 years @ `                   48,000
                    2,000/- p.m.

          5.        Expenses incurred       on   engaging            12,000
                    private servant.

          6.        Misc. expense                                      5,000

                                                    Total       1,50,000

4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant ought to have been awarded some compensation towards loss of his earning capacity. In the absence of any permanent disability, the Appellant was not entitled to any compensation under that head. It is contended that the Tribunal

granted interest @ 12% per annum. He ought to have been granted interest @ 15% per annum. Considering that the accident took place in the year 1986 the award of interest @ 12% was justified. The Tribunal noticed that the claim petition was filed in the year 1987, the issues were framed in the year 1988. Two witnesses were examined in the year 1989 and thereafter for 4 years no witness was produced by him. In the circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the period of payment of interest to 4 years, which was justified.

5. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be low. It is more than just and fair compensation, which is envisaged in Section 110 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. The appeal is devoid of any merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 05, 2012 hs