Delhi High Court
Dev Brat Tiwari vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 22 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 22/2004
DEV BRAT TIWARI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Tarun Rana, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,12,200/-
awarded to the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor
accident which occurred on 11.01.1992.
2. During inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) it was established that the Appellant suffered
head injury with facio maxillary injury (right), fracture lower
end of radius (left), compound and comminuted fracture, tibia
and fibula (left) and fracture right mandible. He (the Appellant)
was working as an Air Craftsman in Indian Air Force and was
getting a salary of `1,500/- per month on the date of the
accident.
3. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of `1,12,200/-
which is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl.No. Compensation under various Awarded by
heads the Claims
Tribunal
1. Medicines `1,000/-
2. Conveyance ` 2,000/-
3. Special Diet ` 5,000/-
4. Loss of Leave ` 3,000/-
5. Pain & Suffering ` 40,000/-
6. Permanent Disability, Loss of ` 61,200/-
Earnings, Loss of Enjoyment,
Amenities in Life and Frustration
Total ` 1,12,200/-
4. The Appellant's grievance is that although, it was established
before the Claims Tribunal that he would not get future
promotion as he was placed in low medical category CEE
(Permanent) and the Claims Tribunal accepted the Appellant's
case on this count, yet no compensation was awarded towards
the loss of promotion to the higher rank.
5. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the injury, permanent disability
and promotion to the higher rank as under:-
"9. As per the medical case sheet dt. 21.12.2000
issued by the Medical Officer of Army hospital, it is
mentioned that in road traffic accident dt. 11.1.92 the
petitioner sustained head injury with facio maxillary
injury (R), fracture lower end radius (L), compound
comminuted fracture, tibia and fibula (L) and fracture
right mandible and he has been placed in low medical
category CEE (permanent) w.e.f. January, 1993 and it
was recommended that this category CEE (Permanent)
will continue and next Board would be on 30.9.01. The
petitioner has also placed on record the photo copy of
medical case sheet dt. 29.10.01 and it is mentioned that
petitioner sustained injuries on 11.1.92 and it was
recommended by the Board that he will continue in low
medical category CEE (Permanent) and next Board is
due on 4.10.02. As per another medical case sheet dt.
9.3.02, it is mentioned that the petitioner suffered
compound comminuted fracture, lower 1/3rd of tibia and
fibula (L), fracture colles (L), fracture patella (L),
fracture mandible (R), fracture zygoma (R) and maxilla
(L) and head injury with fracture sinus. As per the photo
copy of discharge slip of Army Hospital Delhi Cantt. the
petitioner was admitted there on 11.1.92 and discharged
on 27.5.92 and he was diagnosed for suffering compound
fracture tibia and fibula (L), fracture patella (L), fracture
mandible (R), fracture colles (R) and head injury and he
was recommended 8 weeks sick leaves. As per the
Medical Board proceedings dt. 30th September, 1996, the
percentage of disability of the petitioner was assessed at
30%. As per document Ext.PW1/1 dt. 5.10.98 it was
certified by Fit. Lt. that the petitioner has been placed in
low medical category CEE (Permanent) and being
category CEE (Permanent) he will not be promoted for
higher rank.
10. The petitioner has not placed on record his salary
certificate. He has only mentioned his basic salary of
`1150/- plus D.A., plus other allowance in the petition
and actual amount of D.A. and other allowances is not
mentioned. He has also not mentioned his gross salary.
As per the medical documents placed on record, the
petitioner has been working in Indian Air Force and thus
his gross salary would be at least `1500/- p.m. at the
time of accident in question. The petitioner admitted in
his examination-in-chief that he was provided free
treatment in the Army hospital as well as in Artificial
Limb Centre Pune but he purchased medicines worth
`1,000/- as the same were not available there. Though
the petitioner has not placed on record the cash memos
for purchase of medicines yet this is common knowledge
that the patients are generally asked to buy those
medicines from the market which are not found available
there and the petitioner must have spent some amount on
purchase of medicines. He must have also spent some
amount on conveyance in visiting the hospitals for his
follow-up treatment and some amount on consuming rich
protein diet for his early recovery. It is admitted that
during his admission in the Army Hospital from 11.1.92
to 27.5.92 no leave of the petitioner was deducted but he
was recommended sick leaves for 8 weeks and hence, the
petitioner would be entitled for compensation for loss of
leaves also. Now, it would meet the interest of justice, if
the following pecuniary damages are awarded to the
petitioner:-
i) Amount spent on medicines : `1,000/-
ii) Amount spent on conveyance : `2,000/-
iii) Amount spent on special diet : `5,000/-
iv) Loss of leaves `3,000/-
_______________
Total : `11,000/-
_______________
Having suffered the said multiple fractures of left leg, left
knee, left knee, left wrist and fracture mandible and head
injury, the petitioner must have undergone a lot of
physical and mental agony and pain and it would meet
the ends of justice, if further a sum of `40,000/- is
awarded under this head. The petitioner has suffered a
permanent disability of 30% and he has been kept in low
medical category CEE (Permanent) and cannot be
promoted for higher rank and thus the petitioner is also
entitled for compensation for suffering permanent
disability, loss of earnings, loss of enjoyment, amenities
in life and frustration etc. 30% of monthly income of
`1500/- comes to `450/- and after deducting 1/3rd
personal expenses, loss comes to `300/- and annual loss
comes to `3600/- and in the facts and circumstances of
the case, after applying the multiplier of 17, the
compensation under this head comes to `61,200/-. The
total amount of compensation thus comes to `1,12,200/-
which the petitioner is entitled to recover from the
respondents......."
6. Thus, it is evident that the Claims Tribunal accepted that the
Appellant would lose promotion to the higher ranks. Annexure
D in the shape of a chart was placed on the paper book to show
that the Appellant could have been promoted as Sargent, Junior
Warrant Officer, Warrant Officer and Master Warrant Officer.
At the same time, it was not proved by leading any evidence as
to how much time it takes to get promotion from one rank to
another rank. Thus, I have simply to make a guess work to
award compensation towards the loss of promotion as it would
not be expedient to remand the case and seek evidence after 20
years of the accident.
7. In the circumstances, the compensation of `61,200/- which has
been awarded towards the permanent disability, loss of earning
capacity, loss of enjoyment and loss of amenities in life is
treated as towards the permanent disability and loss of future
promotion. I further award a sum of `40,000/- towards the loss
of amenities and expectations in life.
8. Thus, the compensation stands enhanced by `40,000/- which
shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of
the Petition till it payment.
9. The Respondent Rajasthan Transport Corporation, the owner of
the offending vehicle being employer of the second Respondent
is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in
the name of Appellant with the concerned Claims Tribunal
within six weeks. The compensation deposited shall be released
to the Appellant forthwith.
10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
11. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 22, 2012
vk
