National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishan Sharma & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1603 Del

R-11
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

     +      MAC.APP.No.554/2008 and CM No.7598/2009

%                              Date of decision: 6th March, 2012

         NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.         ...... Appellant
                       Through : Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria, Adv. for
                                 Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv.
                  versus

         KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                  Through : None.


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                        JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Claims

Tribunal whereby compensation of `5,46,336/- has been

awarded to respondent No.1

2. The accident dated 12th October, 2004 resulted in

grievous injuries to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 suffered

multiple fractures including fracture of both bones of right leg

and dislocation of left hip. He underwent two surgeries. The

disability of respondent No.1 was assessed to be 85% in

respect of bilateral lower limbs as per disability certificate,

Ex.PX.

3. Respondent No.1 was in transport business and

agriculture earning `5,000/- per month. Considering the

constriction of movement, the effect of the disability on

earnings qua the whole body was taken as 40%. The Claims

Tribunal took the minimum wages of `2,894/- into

consideration, applied the multiplier of 8 and taking 40% of the

same, the loss of earning due to the permanent disability was

assessed to be `1,15,200/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded

`1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, `52,136/- towards

actual and reasonable medical expenses, `50,000/- towards

future medical expenses, `36,000/- towards loss of income

during the period of treatment of one year, `25,000/- towards

special diet and conveyance, `18,000/- towards the attendant

for six months, `50,000/- towards shortening of life span and

`1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. The total

compensation awarded is `5,46,336/-.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged two

following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

(i) Respondent No.1 was the gratuitous passenger on

the goods vehicle and, therefore, the appellant is

not liable to pay any compensation.

(ii) The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on

higher side and should be reduced.

5. With respect to the first ground, it is noted that

respondent No.1 appeared in the witness box before the

Claims Tribunal as PW-1 and in cross-examination, he deposed

that he was travelling in the vehicle along with the

consignment of vegetable. In that view of the matter,

respondent No.1 was not a gratuitous passenger and,

therefore, the appellant is liable to pay compensation.

6. With respect to the second ground urged by the

appellant, it is noted that the amount awarded by the Claims

Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any

reduction considering the 85% disability in respect of bilateral

lower limbs suffered by respondent No.1 and the evidence on

record. Respondent No.1 remained under treatment for a year

and underwent two surgeries for the three fractures suffered

by him.

7. There is no infirmity in the award passed by the Claims

Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The pending

application is disposed of.

J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 06, 2012 mk