Nidhi @ Mona vs Ajeet Kumar Jindal & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1471 Del

$~37

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 1st March, 2012

+        MAC. APP. No.153/2009

         NIDHI @ MONA                          ..... Appellant
                             Through:     Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate

                        Versus

         AJEET KUMAR JINDAL & ORS         ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
                               the Respondent No.3 Insurance
                               Company.

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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,28,645/-

awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in an accident which occurred on 09.04.2006.

2. The Appellant suffered following injuries:

"- Serious Head Injury

- Fracture (Right) femur bone (Shaft)

- CLW over left occipital region of Scalp

- As per CT Scan :- Contusional Hematomas in both basi- frontal Lobes & Right Temporal region, sub- dural haematoma in occipital region, fracture of occipital bone

- Fracture femur bone treated with I/L Nailing

- Profusely bleeding

- Abrassions and blunt injuries all over body."

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant suffered from Paraosmia, a condition which impairs tastes and smell sensation. A certificate Ex.PW2/11 issued by Dr.(Brig) Ved Prakash, Consultant Neurosurgeon to this effect was proved by the Appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was working from home as she was giving tuitions and carrying out medical transcription work on contact basis. She was earning `8,000/- per month. She proved the certificates Exhibits PW2/74 to PW2/78 regarding her qualification, including Oracle Course and a certificate issued by SAR Institute of Medical Transcription, Rohini. It is urged that the Appellant was unable to attend to the work for a period of seven months.

5. With the nature of injuries suffered, it can be assumed that the Appellant must have been incapacitated to work for at least two months.

6. The compensation needs to be enhanced. The compensation is re-assessed as under:

S.No. Head of Granted by Granted by Compensation the Claims this Court Tribunal

1. Compensation on `76,645/- `76,645/-

                        account            of
                        Medicines/Treatment
          2.            Loss of Amenities in     `15,000/-    `25,000/-
                        Life
          3.            Pain and Suffering    `25,000/-       `25,000/-

          4.            Conveyance     and `12,000/-          `12,000/-
                        Special Diet
          5.            Loss of Work for       -              `16,000/-
                        Two months(`8000 X
                        2)
                        Total              `1,28,645/-        `1,54,645/-R

7. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from `1,28,645/- to `1,54,645/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of payment.

8. The Respondent No.3 the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of `26,000/- along with interest within six weeks with the

Registrar General of this Court.

9. The amount shall be released to the Appellant on deposit.

10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 01, 2012 pst