Delhi High Court
Jitendra Sharma @ Yatendra Kumar ... vs Sanjay Gupta & Ors. on 30 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th March, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.657/2011
JITENDRA SHARMA @ YATENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava, Adv.
Versus
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,62,500/-
awarded to the Appellant for having suffered grievous injuries
in a motor accident which occurred on 04.12.2004.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the Insured or the Insurance
Company (the Insurer), the finding on negligence has become
final between the parties.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant are:-
(i) In Para 6 of the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal
awarded a sum of `1,77,988/- which was the expenditure
towards the medical treatment. While computing the
compensation in Para 9, the said sum was inadvertently
excluded.
(ii) The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is
very meager considering the period of hospitalization and
the period of recovery.
4. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.3
Insurance Company that the Appellant during inquiry before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
established that a sum of `1,77,988/- was spent on medical
treatment. Since the said sum was not included in Para 9, I
would award the same now.
5. It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of
money which is suffered by an injured on account of serious
injuries caused to him in a motor accident. Since the
compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an
attempt must be made to award compensation which may have
some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent
by the victim of a motor accident. For this purpose, the Claims
Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury;
the parts of the body where the injuries were sustained;
surgeries (if any) underwent by the victim; confinement in the
hospital and the duration of the treatment.
6. In this case, the Appellant suffered compound fracture lat condy
left tibia and combined fracture malleolus with fracture of lower
1/3rd fibula. SA ring fixator was applied on 12.12.2004 and SA
K. wire fixation of fracture malleolus and enter of ring fixator
was applied on 21.12.2004.
7. The Claims Tribunal accepted the Appellant's version that
because of the serious injuries he remained confined to home
for a period of ten months and was awarded compensation of
loss of pay for the said period. Considering the period of
hospitalization and the long time taken for recovery, the
compensation of `40,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering
was on the lower side. In the circumstances, I would enhance
the same from ` 40,000/- to ` 60,000/-.
8. The compensation is re-computed as under:-
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded by
various heads the Claims this Court
No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Income `62,500/- `62,500/-
2. Pain and Suffering ` 40,000/- ` 60,000/-
3. Special Diet ` 20,000/- ` 20,000/-
4. Deformity ` 30,000/- ` 30,000/-
5. Conveyance Expenses ` 10,000/- ` 10,000/-
6. Medical Expenditure -- ` 1,77,988/-
Total ` 1,62,500/- ` 3,60,488/-
9. The overall compensation is consequently increased from `
1,62,500/- to ` 3,60,488/-.
10. The enhanced compensation of ` 1,97,988/- shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal to be
deposited within six weeks with the Registrar General of this
Court.
11. On deposit, the enhanced amount along with interest shall be
released/held in fixed deposit in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court,
New Delhi as per the Claims Tribunal's order.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
13. No costs.
14. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 30, 2012
vk
