Delhi High Court
Kamal Raj vs Ravi Dutt Yadav & Ors. on 18 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th January, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.570/2007
KAMAL RAJ ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv.
versus
RAVI DUTT YADAV & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for
Insurance Company.
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 an accident, which took place on
14.12.2004. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Tribunal) awarded an overall compensation of ` 2,51,000/-
under various heads, which are extracted hereunder: -
S. No. Compensation Head Amount (`)
1. Reimbursement of Medical expenses 1,63,000
2. Loss of Earnings 24,600
3. Conveyance/ Special Diet 15,000
4. Attendant Charges 4,000
5. Pain and Suffering 20,000
6. Disfigurement/ Loss of Enjoyment 25,000
of Life
7. Future Medical Expenses Nil
8. Permanent Disability Nil
TOTAL COMPENSATION 2,51,600
2. There is no Appeal by the Insurance Company or by the owner
or the driver thus, I am not to go into the question of negligence.
3. The Appellant suffered very serious injuries, which is apparent
from the document Ex. PW-2/87, which shows that the
Appellant suffered injury on one third of the lower limb on
which a slab was applied. He was also having an injury on the
left arm which was plastered. He was having an injury on the
forehead which was stitched. He was having a wound on the
right side of his nose which was stitched. He was then referred
to ENT and Orthopaedic Surgeon Ex. PW-2/88 shows fractures
of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th rib and fracture of clavicle on the right
side, Ex. PW-2/89 is in consonance with Ex. PW-2/88. Ex.
PW-2/90 shows the fracture of ramus on mandible right side,
body of mandible left side involving alvcolar region; the
fracture of the right temporal bone involving petrous; fracture of
interior and infro-lateral walls of maxillary sinus; fracture of
lateral wall of right orbit & fracture of left nasal bone. So
medical records produced by the petitioner go on to prove that
he has sustained multiple injuries as put forth in the petition and
is undergoing treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
compensation awarded towards pain & suffering was on the
lower side. It is contended that the document Ex. PW-2/91 was
not considered by the Tribunal whereby an estimate of `
50,000/- was given for the plastic surgery by Maharaja Agrasen
Hospital. In para 81 and 82 of the judgment the Tribunal held
as under: -
"81. Future Medical Expenses
Petitioner in para 3 has testified that he
shall have to spend a sum of ` 50,000/- at least on
his future plastic surgery and ` 30,000/- towards
removal of implant and ` 50,000/- towards
physiotherapy, conveyance and special diet. Thus
a sum of ` 1,30,000/- has been claimed towards
probable future expenses. Petitioner has not
placed on record any document concerning his
future treatment of plastic surgery and removal of
implants. Petitioner has also not shown any
prescription by virtue of which it can be said that
he has to undertake physiotherapy exercises.
Petitioner as per para 4 has joined his duties on
15.03.05. No documentary proof to the effect that
employer of the petitioner has reduced the scale or
salary of the petitioner has been placed on record.
In cross examination PW-2 Kamal Raj has
categorically admitted that he could not show any
prescription slip to the effect that he has to spend a
sum of ` 50,000/- towards future medical treatment
in the nature of plastic surgery, ` 30,000/- toward
removal of implant and ` 50,000/- on
physiotherapy exercises, special diet and
conveyance. In the absence of proper documents
as is required, no amount can be awarded towards
future medical expenses to the petitione as it is
common knowledge that implants might not have
to be removed throughout the life, if the same are
not troublesome. Petitioner has not placed on
record any document by virtue of which it can be
said that implants are troubling him or plastic
surgery will cost this much of amount. So in view
of the failure of petitioner to place on record
proper documents, I am constrained to disallow
the request of the petitioner towards future
expenses.
82. Disfigurement/ Loss of enjoyment of
amenities of life
During cross examination of PW-2 my Ld.
predecessor had observed that the witness has a
visible scar near his right nostril which appears to
have been stitched and is not in its normal shape
and it is surely a case of slight disfigurement. In
view of the observation of my Ld. Predecessor,
petitioner requires to be compensated for his slight
disfigurement. He may require plastic surgery for
the same or may have to lead his life with visible
scar. Although a sum of ` 50,000/- has been
claimed towards plastic surgery but in the absence
of any document, this amount cannot be awarded
as discussed supra. Petitioner has not stated in the
affidavit as to whether he is married or unmarried.
In the absence of this, this court is not in a position
to appreciate fully the consequences of
disfigurement. Petitioner is 32 years of age.
Petitioner has chosen not to appear before me
despite my general directions to the contrary. In
view of all the facts and circumstances of the case,
in my considered view a sum of ` 25,000/- towards
disfigurement/ loss of enjoyment of amenities of
life shall meet the ends of justice."
5. The Appellant did not produce any evidence from the Hospital
or even the doctor concerned to establish on record that plastic
surgery was really required to remove the small disfigurement
on the lower side of the nose as it appears from the photograph
now shown by the learned counsel for the Appellant would have
been removed. The Tribunal rightly declined to award any
compensation for future medical expenses on good reasons as
stated in para 81 and 82, which are extracted above.
6. The Appellant remained admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital
for 17 days and he was unable to attend to his work for 3
months for which he has been compensated by the award of loss
of salary. The compensation of ` 20,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal towards pain and suffering though, it was a subjective
decision of the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side.
Considering the duration of the treatment and the nature of
injuries, the same is enhanced from ` 20,000/- to ` 30,000/-.
The amount of ` 10,000/- awarded by way of enhancement shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
Appeal till the date of payment. The Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 30 days with the
Registrar General of this Court, which shall be released to the
Appellant forthwith.
7. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 18, 2012
hs
