Delhi High Court
Brijesh Gupta vs Vijender Kumar & Ors. on 10 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:10th May, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.603/2010
BRIJESH GUPTA
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal with
Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Advocates
Versus
VIJENDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rameeza Hakeem with
Mr. Prayadarshi Gopal & Mr.
Rajat Brar, Advocates for the
Respondent No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,18,000/-
awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in an
accident which occurred on 13.06.2007.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the owner, driver or the
Insurance Company, the finding of negligence has become final
between the parties.
3. The compensation of `1,18,000/- awarded under various heads
is tabulated hereunder:
Sl.No. Compensation under Awarded by the
various heads Claims Tribunal
1. Medical Expenses `85,000/-
2. Conveyance ` 5,000/-
3. Special Diet ` 3,000/-
4. Pain and Sufferings ` 25,000/-
Total ` 1,18,000/-
4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:
(i) No compensation was awarded towards loss of
income; although the Appellant could not attend to
his work for a period of more than six months.
(ii) The compensation awarded towards pain and
suffering is very meager.
(iii) No compensation was awarded towards loss of
amenities.
5. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the Respondent No.3
Insurance Company that the Appellant was unsuccessful to
prove that he was working in any provision store and, therefore,
the Claims Tribunal rightly declined to grant any loss of income
to the Appellant. It is contended that the compensation of
`25,000/- awarded towards the pain and suffering was sufficient
which covered the head of loss of amenities.
6. It was proved on record that immediately after the accident on
13.06.2007, the Appellant was removed to Sanjay Gandhi
Memorial Hospital. For lack of adequate medical attention, he
got himself shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. It is proved from
the discharge summary Ex.PW1/1 that the Appellant remained
admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital from 14.06.2007 to
19.06.2007. He suffered fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg
apart from multiple injuries all over his body. During this
period of hospitalization, the Appellant underwent surgeries and
operations were conducted on both legs and steel rods were
inserted in right leg and steel plates were inserted in left leg.
There was delayed union of fracture of tibia, therefore, the
Appellant had to be admitted in Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital
on 20.11.2007. Bone graphing was done and he was discharged
from the Hospital on 23.11.2007. The medical and fitness
certificate issued by Dr. Manoj Sharma of Jaipur Golden
Hospital shows that he was advised bed rest for a period of five
months with effect from the date of the accident.
7. It is true that the Appellant has been paid compensation for all
the amounts spent on his treatment in Jaipur Golden Hospital, in
Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital and for purchase of medicines.
It was established on record that the Appellant was advised bed
rest for a period of five months. It can, therefore, be assumed
that the Appellant was unable to resume his work at least for a
period of six months. The Appellant was unable to prove that
he was working in a provision store. In this view of the matter,
the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded loss of income to
the Appellant on the basis of the minimum wages as per his
qualification. The minimum wages of a matriculate on the date
of the accident was `3,918/-. I would thus award a sum of
`23,508/- (`3918 X 6) towards the loss of income.
8. As stated earlier, it is proved on record that the Appellant
underwent successive surgeries. He remained admitted in three
Hospitals for different duration of time and was under
prolonged treatment because of the nature of injuries suffered
by him. 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. In the circumstances,
the compensation of `25,000/- awarded towards pain and
suffering was inadequate. Considering the nature of injuries,
surgeries underwent, period of hospitalization and duration of
treatment, the same is enhanced to `40,000/-.
9. The Appellant remained confined to bed for a period of five
months. He was deprived of all the amenities during this
period. The Appellant recovered from the injuries without any
permanent disability. In the circumstances, I would award him
a compensation of `10,000/- towards loss of amenities.
10. Thus, there is a total enhancement of `48,508/- which shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of
the Petition till its deposit.
11. The Respondent No.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of `48,508/- along
with interest in the name of the Appellant in the UCO Bank,
Delhi High Court Branch within six weeks.
12. 50% of the amount shall be held in Fixed Deposit for a period
of two years. Rest of the amount shall be released immediately
on deposit.
13. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 10, 2012
pst
