Delhi High Court
Rajinder Singh vs Rm Soni & Ors on 2 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 2nd May, 2012
+ FAO 572/2002
RAJINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
RM SONI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate 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 `28,151/-
awarded in favour of Rajinder Singh who suffered injuries in a
motor accident which occurred on 23.08.1985.
2. At the time of the accident, the Appellant was working as a
Meter Reader in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU)
and was earning a salary of `2226.15P per month (as deposed
by PW-1).
3. The Appellant suffered injuries on various parts of his body
including crush injuries on the right leg. He suffered fracture of
both bones in the right leg. He was operated upon in Hindu Rao
Hospital. He then received treatment in Safdarjung Hospital and
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. On account of the treatment he took
leave for the period of about 13 months. As per the Disability
Certificate issued by Dr. S.P. Mandal, there was permanent
disability to the extent of 40% in respect of his right lower limb.
4. Since there is no challenge to the impugned judgment by the
driver, the owner or the Insurance Company, the finding on
negligence between the parties has become final.
5. The compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various Awarded by
heads the Claims
No. Tribunal
1. Loss of Leave for nine months `4,500/-
2. Pain and Suffering ` 15,000/-
3. Special Diet & Conveyance ` 5,000/-
4. Medical Bill ` 3,651/-
Total ` 28,151/-
6. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the
Appellant:-
(i) The compensation towards Loss of Leave was awarded to
the Appellant on the basis of minimum wages for a
period of nine months although it was established that he
was getting a salary of `2226.15P per month and he had
to obtain leave for a period of 383 days. Thus, it is urged
that the Appellant was entitled to the compensation for
loss of leave for the above said period.
(ii) Although, the Appellant did not suffer any damage on
account of loss of earning capacity because of permanent
disability, as he continued to work with DESU on the
same post, yet, he was not awarded any compensation
towards permanent disability and loss of amenities in life.
(iii) The compensation of `15,000/- awarded towards pain
and suffering is low.
7. It is established from PW-1's testimony that the Appellant
remained on medical leave from 26.08.1985 to 07.08.1986 and
then from 24.11.1988 to 31.12.1988. He also deposed in
August, 1985 that the Appellant was getting salary of
`2226.15P per month.
8. This accident took place on 23.08.1985. The Appellant was
entitled to the compensation for Loss of Leave for 383 days @
2226.15P per month which comes to about `28,000/-. The
compensation for Loss of Leave is thus enhanced from `4,500/-
to `28,000/-.
9. The Appellant's testimony that there was shortening of his right
leg and that it is not in proper shape, was not challenged in
cross-examination. His testimony that even in the year 1997
(i.e. after 12 years of the accident) he was unable to walk
properly was not disputed in the cross-examination. The
Disability Certificate Ex.PW-5/14 issued by Dr. S.P. Mandal
shows that the Appellant suffered shortening of his right leg and
foot. His permanent disability was assessed as 40%. Although,
the Disability Certificate has not been issued by a Board of
Doctors, yet in the absence of any challenge to the same by the
Respondents, I would rely on the same on the basis of the
judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v.
Anuj Sharma,(2006) 128 DLT 528.
10. Considering that this accident took place in the year 1985, I
would award him a compensation of `25,000/- towards Loss of
Amenities and Permanent Disability.
11. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `15,000/-
towards pain and suffering. It is not disputed that the Appellant
suffered serious injuries resulting into permanent disability. He
had to undertake a prolonged treatment for over a year.
Considering the value of rupee in the year 1985, the
compensation of `15,000/- appears to be just and reasonable
and does not call for any interference.
12. The compensation is thus reassessed as under:-
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by Awarded
various heads the Claims by this
No. Tribunal Court
1. Loss of Leave for nine `4,500/- `28,000/-
months
2. Pain and Suffering ` 15,000/- ` 15,000/-
3. Special Diet & Conveyance ` 5,000/- ` 5,000/-
4. Medical Bill ` 3,651/- ` 3,651/-
5. Loss of Amenities & -- ` 25,000/-
Permanent Disability
Total ` 28,151/- ` 76,651/-
13. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from `28,151/- to
`76,651/-.
14. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the rate
of interest should have been awarded from the date of filing of
the Petition. The Claims Tribunal held that the Appellant
repeatedly amended the Claim Petition and adjournments had to
be granted to the Respondents for filing written statement to the
amended petitions. On many of the dates, the Appellant did not
take steps for the service of notice on the Respondents. Thus,
the Claims Tribunal was justified in granting interest only w.e.f.
01.02.1994.
15. The enhanced compensation of `48,500/- shall carry interest @
9% per annum from 01.02.1994 (as granted by the Claims
Tribunal) till the date of the deposit with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch, New Delhi. The Respondent No.3
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount
of compensation within six weeks.
16. The amount so deposited shall be released to the Appellant
immediately.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 02, 2012
vk
