Vijay Kumar Singh vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 509 Del

$~1
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: 24th January, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.452/2011

         VIJAY KUMAR SINGH                      ..... Appellant
                      Through:            Mr. Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate

                        versus

         BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. &
         ORS.                         .... Respondents
                       Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate
                                for Respondent No.1/insurance
                                company

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

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Vijay Kumar Singh seeks enhancement of compensation of `1 lakh awarded to him for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 12.08.2009. The Appellant suffered right femur comminuted fracture of intertrochanteric region. He remained in the hospital for four days. He was awarded the compensation of `1 lakh under the following heads:

         Expenses on Medicines                        `45,000/-
         Expenses on Diet and Attendant Charges       `10,000/-





          Expenses for Mental Pain and Agony            `35,000/-

Expenses on Special and General Damages `10,000/-

Total ` 1,00,000/-

2. The Appellant's grievance is that he was unable to attend to his work for four-five months till he was turned out of the job. He was not given any compensation for not attending to his work with his employer M/s Nava Health Care Pvt. Ltd. It is also urged that the rate of interest @ 7.5% P.A. was much lower than the bank rate of interest.

3. The Appellant's testimony that he was working with M/s Neva Health Care Pvt. Ltd. was not believed by the Court in view of the contradictory evidence produced by him. The Trial Court on this aspect held as under:

"8. No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioner and no evidence was led on behalf of the Insurance Company. Accordingly, arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties were heard. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had proved his medical bills on record and besides the same, had incurred some more expenses on his treatment. It was claimed that the petitioner had to undergo a future surgery for removal of rod affixed in his leg. It was further submitted that the petitioner had remained hospitalized for e to 4 days and had remained confined to his bed for about 4-5 months. It was further claimed that due to the accident, petitioner could not attend his office and was turned out of the job.

13. As regards compensation for loss of income and future prospective benefits, the petitioner had failed to prove on record any claim in that regard. The petitioner claimed that he was employed with Nava Health Care Private Limited but the letter placed on record (Mark PW1/10) is issued by Yugha Herbal Care Private Ltd. Although, PW-2 examined by the petitioner had claimed that the petitioner was employed with Nava Health Care Private Limited and was drawing salary of `6,000/- per month, the witness has nowhere mentioned that the petitioner could not attend his service for any period of time nor as he stated about the petitioner not being paid any salary for any period of time after the accident took place. Surprisingly, even the petitioner in his claim petition or in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has failed to mention the period for which he had suffered any loss of salary. Needless to mention herein that only passing reference had been made to the petitioner earning `3,000/- per month from tuition work. No evidence in that regard was led on record. In view of all the aforesaid, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of income or loss of future prospective benefits. Even PW-2 had specifically stated that he could not say if salary of the petitioner would be increased had he continued service with the company. As such, no compensation is awarded in this regard."

4. It is not in dispute that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that he was doing any tuition work. The Tribunal rightly disbelieved the evidence with regard to the Appellant's employment with M/s Neva Health Care Pvt. Ltd., because the salary certificate (Mark PW1/10) was filed from M/s Yugha Herbal Care Private Ltd. and PW2 Sh.H.S. Kohli admitted that the final appointment letter was not issued to him as he did not

resign the job with his previous employer, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by him i.e. right femur comminuted fracture of intertrochanteric region it can safely be assumed that the Appellant must have been confined to his home for a period of about three months.

5. The Appellant is a Graduate from Bihar University, Muzaffarpur as is evident from the Marksheet Ex.PW1/11 proved on record. In the circumstances, I award him a compensation of ` 14,139/- for not attending to his work for a period of three months as per the minimum wages of a graduate i.e. `4713/- per month.

6. The rate of interest @ 7.5% P.A. as granted by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.

7. Amount of `14,139/- along with interest @ 7.5% PA shall be deposited by the Respondent Insurance Company with the Registrar General of this Court within 30 days, which shall be released to the Appellant forthwith.

8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 24, 2012 pst