Delhi High Court
Mahender Singh (Now Deceased ... vs Raj Kumar & Ors. on 18 January, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th January, 2012
+ FAO 446/1999
MAHENDER SINGH
(NOW DECEASED THROUGH LRs) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv.
versus
RAJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Adv. for
Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Mahender Singh (now deceased) through LRs
having died on 10.06.2005 during the pendency of the Appeal,
seeks enhancement of compensation for having suffered injuries
in an accident, which took place on 02.10.1994. The Tribunal
awarded a sum of ` 2,000/- towards medical expenses, ` 5,000/-
towards special diet and conveyance and ` 3,000/- towards loss
of salary apart from ` 15,000/- as general damages making the
overall compensation of ` 25,000/-.
2. Since, the Appellant has died during pendency of the Appeal, in
view of Section 308 of the Indian Succession Act his legal
representatives would be entitled to only pecuniary damages.
No appeal is preferred by the Respondent Haryana Roadways
and thus I am not to go into the question of negligence.
3. The Appellant as PW-2 deposed that in the accident his right leg
was fractured. He suffered injuries on various parts of his body
including his head. He was given 90 stitches on his head. He
deposed that he remained under treatment in Hindu Rao
Hospital and then with Dr. Grover, a Private Medical
Practitioner. He claimed that he spent ` 1,50,000/- on his
treatment.
4. Unfortunately, the Appellant did not produce any evidence with
regard to the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment. The
Appellant deposed that he was working as a driver at the time of
accident and on account of the injuries suffered by him in the
right leg he could not drive any vehicle due to which he started
working as a Guard. He testified that he could not attend to his
work for one year.
5. The Tribunal accepted the Appellant's salary to be ` 1,000/- per
month. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal declined to
believe that apart from the salary he had the income of ` 2,000/-
or ` 3,000/- per month. The Appellant's testimony that he could
not attend his work remained unchallenged. He is, therefore,
required to be compensated for loss of salary for one year. The
Appellant suffered fracture of shaft femur right leg resulting
into the disability of more than 40%. Amount of ` 2,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal for such an injury was very meagre. In
the facts & circumstances, the amount of loss of income is
enhanced from ` 3,000/- to ` 12,000/-, the amount for medical
treatment is enhanced from ` 2,000/- to ` 5,000/-. The amount
towards special diet and conveyance is enhanced from ` 5,000/-
to ` 8,000/-.
6. The enhanced compensation of ` 18,000/- shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of the Appeal till the date of
payment. This enhanced compensation along with interest shall
be payable to the Appellant's widow, which shall be deposited
with the Registrar General of this Court by way of a Demand
Draft in the name of the Appellant's widow, which shall be
released to her forthwith. The Respondent Haryana Roadways
is directed to deposit the amount within 30 days.
7. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 18, 2012
hs
