Delhi High Court
Rakesh Bali vs Subhash Chand & Ors. on 17 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th October, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 380/2012
RAKESH BALI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vijay Wadhwa, Adv.
versus
SUBHASH CHAND & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manjush Wadhwa, Adv. 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 `4,01,000/- awarded
in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 13.03.2005.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner or the Insurer, the
finding on negligence has attained finality.
3. The Appellant suffered fracture of both bones left leg, collar bone, three
ribs and head injuries. He was initially removed to DDU hospital. He
was then referred to RML hospital where he remained admitted upto
29.03.2005. On 22.06.2005 bone grafting was done and on 24.06.2005
interlocking system was inserted in his left leg. He received dental
treatment from Niketa Vasisth Dental Centre, Dwarka where internal
dental wiring was done on 08.06.2006. The Appellant proved estimate for
implantation Ex.PW-1/41. The interlocking nailing system was to be
removed for which he proved estimate Ex.PW-1/108. The Appellant was
granted compensation of `4,01,000/- which is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by
the Claims
No. Tribunal
1. Medical Expenses `81,000/-
2. Pain and Suffering & Enjoyment of Life ` 50,000/-
3. Special Diet, Attendant & Conveyance ` 45,000/-
Charges
4. Loss of Income ` 2,25,000/-
3. Loss of Love & Affection ` 1,50,000/-
Total ` 4,01,000/-
4. The only contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the
Appellant filed an estimate Ex.PW-1/41 and examined PW-3 Dr. Amit
Sambhi, Dental Surgeon to prove that he required replacement of eight
teeth at the cost of `30,000/- each. He was, therefore, entitled to be
awarded a sum of `2,40,000/- for replacement of those eight teeth. He
also proved the estimate Ex.PW-1/108 for removal of interlocking nails
for `24,468/-. The Claims Tribunal did not deal with the aspect of future
treatment while awarding compensation.
5. I have before me the Trial Court Record. PW-3 testified as under:-
"PW3 Dr. Amit Sambhi Dental Sirgent running clinic at Shop
No.14, Chaudhary Harphool Singh Market, Mahavir Enclave, New
Delhi-45
The petitioner remained under my treatment. After examination of
petitioner I found that 8 teeth had to be replaced in the upper and
lower jaw of the petitioner and that per tooth will cost him
`30,000/-."
6. PW-3 also issued an estimate Ex.PW-1/41. In his evidence PW-3
admitted that the cost of each tooth would vary from Clinic to Clinic and
the period of treatment for replacement of eight teeth would be about six
months. Although, a suggestion was given to PW-3 that the cost given by
him was very exorbitant, yet no evidence was produced by the
Respondent Insurance Company as to what would be the cost of
replacement of each tooth. The Respondents could have rebutted PW-3's
testimony and the document Ex.PW-1/41 by examining any Orthodontist
to give the cost of replacement of each tooth; that having not been done, I
have to accept PW-3's testimony. Accordingly, I award him a sum of
`2,40,000/- towards future treatment for replacement of his eight teeth.
7. The Appellant further proved on record the cost of procedure for removal
of interlocking nails given by Orthonova Hospital Ex.PW-1/108 as
`24,468/-. Details of all the amounts including the Surgeon fee of
`9,400/- has been mentioned in the estimate. The Appellant is entitled to
the award of this amount as also towards future treatment.
8. The estimate Ex.PW-1/41 was given on 17.11.2008 and the estimate
Ex.PW-1/108 was given on 16.09.2006. Hence, in all the Appellant is
awarded a sum of `2,64,468/- towards future treatment.
9. The Appellant would be entitled to an interest @ 7.5% per annum on the
amount of `2,64,468/- from 01.12.2008 till its payment.
10. Respondent No.3 M/s. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with
the Claims Tribunal within six weeks.
11. The amount deposited shall be released to the Appellant.
12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
13. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 17, 2012
Vk
