Delhi High Court
Ramesh Singh vs Satbir & Ors. on 7 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~R-31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:7th May, 2012
+ FAO. No.274/2003
RAMESH SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
Versus
SATBIR & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `87,800/-
awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in an
accident which occurred on 20.01.1993.
2. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was removed to
Santom Hospital where he underwent surgery under general
anesthesia and his left leg was kept in POP. He suffered
multiple fractures of lower fibula and fracture of upper and
lower fibula-right knee. He remained admitted in the hospital
for 14 days. He took about four months to recover from the
injuries and suffered permanent disability in respect of his left
lower limb because of stiff knee with a stiff left ankle and
shortening of left leg by half an inch. The Claims Tribunal
awarded the compensation, which is tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by the Claims
various heads Tribunal
No.
1. Medical Expenses `24,000/-
2. Loss of Income ` 7,800/-
2. Conveyance Expenses ` 15,000/-
3. Pain and Suffering ` 5,000/-
3. Disability ` 30,000/-
Total ` 81,800/-
(which has been wrongly
calculated by the Claims
Tribunal as `87,800/-)
3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:
(i) The compensation awarded towards pain and
suffering was very meager.
(ii) The Appellant who was working as a Constable in
Delhi Police though he did not suffer any loss in his
salary, but he was permanently crippled for life and
also lost a challenging post. No compensation was
awarded towards disfigurement and loss of
amenities.
(iii) No compensation was awarded towards special diet
and attendant charges.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
4. The compensation of just `5,000/- was awarded under this head.
As stated earlier, the Appellant suffered multiple fractures right
of the ankle fibula and knee. It is difficult to measure the pain
and suffering in terms of money which has been suffered by the
claimant 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.
Considering the period of hospitalization, recovery from the
injury and the fact that the Appellant has suffered 40%
disability in respect of his left lower limb and for the reasons
stated earlier, the compensation of `5,000/- was wholly
inadequate. The same is increased to `25,000/-.
LOSS OF AMENITIES IN LIFE AND DISABILITY:
5. The Claims Tribunal apart from awarding a sum of `7,800/- on
account of loss of income, awarded a sum of `30,000/- towards
loss of earning capacity and permanent disability. This was
really towards loss of amenities in life. Taking into account the
fact that the Appellant suffered 40% permanent disability and
was working as a Constable in Delhi Police, I would enhance
the compensation towards loss of amenities, loss of expectation
in life, disfigurement and disability from `30,000/- to `60,000/-.
SPECIAL DIET:
6. Considering the nature of injuries, the Appellant was entitled to
special diet, during the period of treatment. I would award a
sum of `15,000/- towards special diet.
7. The overall compensation thus stands enhanced from `81,800/-
(which has been wrongly calculated by the Claims Tribunal as
`87,800/-) to `1,32,800/-.
8. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that in the
year 1993 to 2000, the rate of interest was in the vicinity of
12%. The award of interest @ 6% was very low. Normally,
interest is awarded as per the bank rate of interest on long term
fixed deposits. In my view, the interest @ 6% was too low.
The same is raised from 6% to 9% per annum from the date of
the filing of the Petition till the date of the award by the Claims
Tribunal and on the enhanced amount of `51,000/- @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of the award upto the date of payment.
9. The Respondent No.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is directed
to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within six
weeks with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch.
10. Since the accident occurred almost 19 years back, the enhanced
compensation shall be released to the Appellant immediately on
deposit.
11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 07, 2012
pst
