Babita vs Mangal Singh & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4398 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 25th July, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 458/2004

         BABITA                                       ....... Appellant
                             Through:     Mr. Santosh Chaurasia, Adv.

                                   versus

         MANGAL SINGH & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                     Through              Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. with
                                          Mr. Amit Gaur, Adv. for R-3.

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

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant who was a school going child, aged 9 years at the time of the accident seeks enhancement of compensation of `1,62,000/- awarded to her by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 01.01.1993.

2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was established that the Appellant's left leg was crushed by the offending truck No.DLL-144. She suffered injuries on other parts of the body and was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital where she remained

admitted initially for a period of 13 months and thereafter for another period of three months. Her left leg was plastered. Subsequently, plastic surgery was also carried out.

4. The Appellant was issued a permanent disability certificate to the extent of 25% in respect of the left lower limb on account of the contraction of left knee joint.

5. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,62,000/-

which is tabulated hereunder:-

Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by the heads Claims Tribunal No.

              1.     Medical Treatment                           ` 10,000/-

              2.     Conveyance Charges                          ` 10,000/-

              3.     Special Diet                               ` 10,000/-

              4.     Loss of Income                             ` 56,250/-

              5.     Pain and Agony                              ` 25,000/-

              6.     Loss of Amenities & Marriage                ` 50,000/-
                     Prospects

                                               Total           ` 1,61,250/-
                                                         Rounded off to
                                                               ` 1,62,000/-

6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that considering the Appellant who was aged just 9 years has to

live with the stiff knee throughout her life, the compensation awarded is very meager. It is urged that the Appellant was under treatment for a period of about three years. The compensation awarded towards conveyance, special diet and expenditure on medicines is very low.

7. Since the Appellant was only 9 years old, it would be difficult to say as to how the permanent disability would impact her earning capacity. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, took the notional income of `15,000/- to award compensation, taking 25% permanent disability in respect of the left lower limb as the disability vis-à-vis the whole body.

8. The minimum wages of a Matriculate on the date of the accident were `1342/- per month that is just about 15,000/- per annum. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of `56,250/- towards loss of earning capacity, which I hold to be adequate and reasonable.

9. The Appellant received treatment in Hindu Rao Hospital, run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The treatment in the hospital was completely free. The Appellant did not produce any evidence with regard to any expenditure in respect of the treatment. The Claims Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and the period of prolonged treatment awarded a sum of `10,000/- under this head, which considering that the accident took place in the year 1993 cannot be said to be on the lower

side.

10. No evidence was led with regard to the amount spent on special diet. Again considering the long duration of the treatment, the amount of `10,000/- awarded appears to be just and reasonable.

11. The Appellant was resident of Sahibabad and the treatment was received in Hindu Rao Hospital. The Appellant's relations must have made a large number of visits to the hospital. Even after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant made several visits to the hospital as an outdoor patient. Although, no cogent evidence was produced with regard to the actual expenditure on conveyance, yet, in the circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded under this head is increased from `10,000/- to `15,000/-.

12. The Claims Tribunal awarded a consolidated sum of `50,000/-

towards loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and disfigurement.

13. The Appellant would always have difficulty in walking, running and squatting etc. etc. In the circumstances, the Appellant was entitled to a sum of `50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life and a sum of `30,000/- separately towards loss of marriage prospects and disfigurement.

14. The overall compensation comes to `1,97,000/-.

15. Thus, there is an enhancement of `35,000/- in the compensation

awarded which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

16. Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with proportionate interest in the name of the Appellant within six weeks in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.

17. Since this accident took place almost 19 years ago, 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years. Rest shall be released to her on deposit.

18. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

19. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JULY 25, 2012 vk