Delhi High Court
Tina Jain vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. on 27 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 22nd November, 2012
Pronounced on: 27th November, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 642/2011
TINA JAIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with
Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv.
versus
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. with
Mr. Sanjeet Raman, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `1,32,000/- awarded
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour
of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on 16.02.2010.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the
finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal has attained
finality.
3. After the accident, the Appellant was removed to Rajendra Hospital,
Sikandrabad, U.P. After first aid, she was shifted to St. Stephen's
Hospital where she remained admitted from 16.02.2010 to 24.02.2010.
The Appellant suffered fracture of nasal bone and jaw. She was operated
upon for alignment of the bones and teeth. The teeth were tightened by
"Dental braces". She was again admitted on 29.03.2010 to the hospital
for removal of wires and further alignment of the bones and was
discharged from the hospital on 01.04.2010.
4. The Appellant claimed that she spent a sum of `1,50,000/- on treatment.
She could not attend to her work for six months and engaged a maid
servant on a salary of `3,500/- per month. She stated that she spent a sum
of `10,000/- on conveyance and `30,000/- on special diet.
5. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of `1,32,000/- which is tabulated
hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by
No. this Court
1. Pain and Suffering `65,000/-
2. Conveyance and Special Diet (without bills) ` 15,000/-
3. Medical Bills ` 38,000/-
4. Attendant Charges for 4 months @ `3,500/- ` 14,000/-
per month
Total ` 1,32,000/-
6. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-
(i) The Appellant's face was disfigured. She was not granted any
compensation on account of disfigurement.
(ii) The compensation of `65,000/- awarded towards pain and
suffering and lumpsum compensation of `15,000/- towards
conveyance and special diet is on the lower side.
(iii) The award of interest @ 7.5% per annum was on the lower side.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance
Company urges that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
8. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was proved that the
Appellant suffered multiple fractures on her nasal bone and jaw. Her
testimony that after the surgeries she was put on liquid diet and her face
was bandaged was not challenged. Her testimony that her face has
become ugly and there are visible marks on her face was also not
challenged in cross-examination.
9. The Appellant has not specified the period for which she had been put on
liquid diet or on special diet. She remained admitted in the hospital for a
period of eight days in the first instance and three days on the second
occasion. In the circumstances, the award of compensation of `15,000/-
towards conveyance and special diet was just and reasonable.
10. It is difficult to measure in terms of money the pain and suffering which
is suffered by the claimant on account of serious injuries caused to her 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.
11. The Appellant suffered injuries on her nose resulting into multiple
fractures of nasal bone and jaw. She must have suffered immense pain for
several days and thereafter when the braces were removed and the bone
realignment at the time of readmission in the hospital. Considering the
nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and the treatment, the sum of
`65,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be niggardly
or on the lower side which appears to be just and reasonable.
12. On the date of the accident, the Appellant was a young woman of 28
years. She ought to have been awarded some compensation towards
disfigurement of her face. In my endeavour to award just compensation, I
make a provision of `75,000/- towards disfigurement.
13. No other contention has been raised. Consequently, there is enhancement
in the compensation awarded by `75,000/-.
RATE OF INTEREST
14. It may be noted that the Claims Tribunal awarded interest @ 7.5% per
annum. This accident took place in the year 2010. Rate of interest on
long-term deposit in the year 2010 were in the vicinity of 9% per annum.
In Smt. Dhaneshwari & Anr. v. Tejeshwar Singh & Ors., (MAC.APP.
997/2011) decided on 19.03.2012, this Court held as under:
"70. Rate of interest were in double digits in 1980's and
1990's. The interest rate started falling at the beginning of this
century. They started rising and firming up since 2007. Since
the rate of interest on long term deposit is now about 9% per
annum, it is unreasonable to award interest @ 7.5% per annum
to the victims of the motor accident."
15. In the circumstances, the Appellant ought to have been awarded interest
@ 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal.
16. The enhanced compensation and the interest as awarded shall be
deposited by the Respondent No.3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks and shall be
released to her (the Appellant) on deposit.
17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
18. Pending Applications stands disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 27, 2012
vk
