Dhananjay vs Royal Sundaram Alliance ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2028 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Decided on: 23rd March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 1072/2011

        DHANANJAY                                      ..... Appellant
                               Through: Mr. Joy Basu, Advocate
                      versus


        ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.
                                            ..... Respondent
                     Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
                               for R-1.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                               JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of ` 1,01,800/- granted by the Claims Tribunal under various heads which can be tabulated hereunder:-

1. Compensation towards pain and suffering `45,000/-

2. Loss of earning due to injury ` 14,000/-

(for 2 months @ 7000/- per month)

3. Expenses towards medical bills ` 17,800/-

4. Reasonable medical expenses without ` 10,000/-

bills

5. Compensation towards conveyance and ` 15,000/-

special diet (without bills) Total ` 1,01,800/-

2. By the impugned judgment dated 07.12.2010, the Claims Tribunal found that the Appellant suffered injuries in an accident which was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing No.DL-IVB-2992 by the first Respondent. The Appellant suffered fracture of left ankle medial malleolus. He remained admitted in Ram Lal Kundan Lal Orthopaedic Hospital & R.K. Maternity Home w.e.f. 29.10.2008 to 06.11.2008. He underwent surgery where the internal fixation was done.

3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that the Appellant was working as a Supervisor in Hare Rama Overseas and was getting a salary of ` 7,000/- per month and an incentive of ` 1,000/-.

4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant lost his job on account of the serious injuries suffered by him in the accident. His earning capacity has decreased but he has not been granted any compensation on account of loss of earning capacity or on account of loss of amenities in life. It is urged that the Appellant was turned out of the job immediately after the accident.

5. No averment was made by the Appellant nor any evidence was led to show that he suffered any permanent disability. There was not even a whisper that he suffered any disability resulting into any loss of earning capacity. Rather, the contention raised

on behalf of the Appellant is contrary to the record.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant urges that he was turned out of the job immediately after the accident, but, the certificate Ex.PW-1/7 dated 23.03.2010 purported to be issued by the Appellant's employer shows that he joined him on 01.04.2008 i.e. six months before the accident and he was working on the date of the issuance of the certificate in the year 2010.

7. It is evident that the Appellant never put up a case that there was any permanent disability resulting into any loss of earning capacity. As stated above, the evidence adduced also points to the same. With the kind of the fracture suffered by the Appellant, a compensation of `45,000/- towards paid and suffering and provision of `15,000/- towards conveyance and special diet was just and fair, apart from reimbursement of the actual expenses incurred by the Appellant.

8. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment.

9. The Appeal is without any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 23, 2012 vk