Delhi High Court
Ravi Pratap Singh vs Naveen Kumar & Ors. on 2 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 2nd January, 2012
+ MAC APP. 396/2011
RAVI PRATAP SINGH ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
Versus
NAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Tiwari proxy counsel for
Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for R-3.
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 in a motor accident which took place on
11.04.2010 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Burari. The
Appellant suffered fracture to the both bones of the right leg. He
was removed to Guru Govind Singh Hospital and was then
shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi The Appellant
remained admitted in the hospital from 11.04.2010 to
19.04.2010. He was operated on 13.04.2010. A nail was
inserted to give support to the bones. The Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) awarded a total compensation of
` 1,07,600/- which is tabulated hereunder:-
Head of Compensation Granted by the
Tribunal
1. Medical Expenses ` 4,200/-
2. Special Diet and Conveyance ` 15,000/-
Charges
3. Loss of Earning ` 23,400/-
4. Future Expenses ` 5,000/-
5. Pain and Suffering ` 60,000/-
TOTAL 1,07,600/-
2. The Appellant's grievance is that he used to manufacture
knives. Because of the injuries suffered by him he is unable to
ply the machine with his right leg. The Tribunal did not
consider his loss of earning capacity. The compensation
awarded towards the loss of earning was on the lower side. The
Appellant remained under treatment even after 11.10.2010; the
amount awarded towards the future medical expenses and
towards pain and suffering is claimed to be low.
3. It is borne out from the record that the Appellant was treated in
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. He proved on record a Cash Memo
Ex.PW-1/2 regarding purchase of Nail-10mm x 34 cm/Tibia
Nailing to be affixed in the bone. He did not prove on record
any other bill. Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital being run by the Govt.
of NCT of Delhi, the treatment of a patients including the
medicines whichever are stocked in the hospital are given free
of cost. The Appellant has not specifically stated that he had to
purchase any medicines from the market because of non-
availability of any particular medicine. In the circumstances, an
awarded of ` 4,200/- towards the medical expenses cannot be
faulted with.
4. The accident took place on 11.04.2010. Although, the Appellant
was discharged from the hospital on 19.04.2010, yet he
remained under treatment of the hospital. On 23.07.2010 full
weight bearing was advised to the Appellant.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Appellant is unable to carry his job of making knives because of
fracture of both bones in the right leg. He was, therefore,
entitled to be paid compensation towards the loss of his earning
capacity.
6. It is not the Appellant's case that he has suffered any permanent
disability affecting the movement of his right leg. No evidence
whatsoever has been produced to show that the Appellant would
use his right or left leg for plying any machine or that his right
leg could not be moved to carry on his vocation. On the other
hand, the medical evidence speaks to the contrary as the
Appellant was advised bearing full weight on 23.07.2010. The
Tribunal was conscious of this fact. In the absence of any proof
of income the Tribunal granted minimum wages of a semi-
skilled worker for a period of four months i.e. w.e.f. 11.04.2010
to 10.08.2010. There is not even a shred of evidence to show
that because of the injuries suffered, the Appellant could not
carry out his work. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal
rightly awarded a compensation (wages for four months of a
semi-skilled worker) amounting to `23,400/-. In the absence of
any evidence with regard to functional disability, the Appellant
could not be awarded any compensation on account of loss of
earning capacity.
7. A sum of ` 50,000/- was claimed towards the future medical
expenses for removal of nail. No evidence as to the amount to
be spent on treatment was led by the Appellant. In the absence
of any evidence an award of ` 5,000/- towards the future
medical expenses cannot be said to be unreasonable.
8. In addition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of `60,000/- on account
of pain and suffering considering the nature of injuries, period
of hospitalization and the period of treatment. The Tribunal
further awarded a sum of `15,000/- towards the conveyance and
special diet charges, which considering the visits cannot be said
to be disproportionate.
9. The overall compensation of `1,07,600/- along with the interest
@ 7.5 % per annum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
10. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY, 02, 2012
vk
