Delhi High Court
Shri Govind Prakash vs Ms/. Icici Lombard Insurance ... on 19 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th October, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 834/2011
SHRI GOVIND PRAKASH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Subhash Chander, Adv.
versus
MS/. ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
.... Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `86,728/- awarded in
favour of the Appellant Govind Prakash for having suffered injuries in a
motor vehicle accident which occurred on 30.07.2007.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver-cum-owner and the insurer,
the finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal has attained
finality.
3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the
Appellant was working as a driver of Vikram (a light goods vehicle) and
was earning `15,000/- to `16,000/- per month. He had purchased the said
three wheeler on credit through Two Friends Motor and Auto Deals. It
was stated that he was only able to drive the vehicle for a period of five
months, that is, upto 02.01.2008. Thereafter, he was advised to drive the
vehicle gradually.
4. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was admitted in All India
Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). On the next day he was
discharged. At the time of discharge on the next day, the Consultant
noted his diagnosis as minor head injury.
5. The Claims Tribunal in the absence of any evidence with regard to
Appellant's income took the minimum wages of a skilled worker on the
date of the accident and awarded compensation for loss of earning for 12
months. It further awarded a sum of `10,000/- towards special diet and
conveyance and `25,000/- towards pain and suffering to compute the
overall compensation of `86,728/-.
6. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:-
(i) The Claims Tribunal erred in taking the Appellant's income as per
the Minimum Wages of a skilled worker.
(ii) Apart from head injury, the Appellant also suffered fracture of ribs.
The compensation of `25,000/- awarded towards pain and
suffering and `10,000/- towards special diet and conveyance was
on the lower side.
(iii) No compensation was awarded towards functional disability.
7. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) enjoins just
compensation. In General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation,
Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176, the Supreme
Court held as under: -
"5......The determination of the quantum must answer what
contemporary society "would deem to be a fair sum such as
would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his
neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the
fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly
since the law values life and limb in a free society in
generous scales'. All this means that the sum awarded must
be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards."
8. As stated earlier, immediately after the accident the Appellant was
admitted to AIIMS. He was diagnosed to have suffered minor head
injury. He was discharged from the hospital on the next day. The
following observations are recorded on the discharge summary:-
"DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE:
NCCT SCAN HEAD 30/7/07 L sided small temporal contusion,
with No mass effect, No midline shift basal cistern open. NCCT
Scan head 30/7/07 No change in hematoma size. No mass effect.
No midline shift. Basal cisterns are N. ..........
CONDITION ON DISCHARE:
E4V5M6. Pupils B/L NSNR. Acepting orally. No motor/Sensory
deficit.
COMMENTS : Pt may suffer from post head injury sequale like
headache and irritability, lack of concentration lack of intact.
It is informed that, it pt develops LOC, severe headache vomiting
weakness of any limbs, urgently report to the casualty AIIMS/any
other hospital to residence."
9. The Appellant followed up his treatment with GTB hospital where it was
noticed that he had also suffered fracture of 4th and 5th ribs. On the first
date of consultation, that is, on 05.09.2007 doctor advised him to take
rest, avoid driving/cycling/swimming for two months. On 18.10.2007 the
Appellant was found to be comfortable and the medicines were
continued. Again on 14.11.2007 he (the Appellant) was found to be
comfortable. He was advised to avoid driving for one month, i.e. upto
14.11.2007. After 14.11.2007 the Appellant contacted the doctor only on
02.01.2008. The doctor noticed that there was no seizure for the last five
months; there was no dizziness. Thus, he was advised to start driving
gradually.
10. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that after
02.01.2008 the Appellant never consulted the doctor. This means that at
the most the Appellant was away from driving for 5-6 months.
11. Apart from his own statement in the Affidavit that he was earning
`15,000/- to `16,000/- per month, the Appellant did not produce any
evidence with regard to his income. Admittedly, the Appellant was not
paying any income tax. In the Assessment Year 2007-08 any income
beyond `1,00,000/- was subject to tax. Thus, even if, the Appellant's
income is not taken or assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages and is
taken @ `5,000/- per month and if loss of income is awarded for the
period of six months (as against 12 months awarded by the Claims
Tribunal), the same comes to `30,000/- only against an award of
`46,728/-
12. As stated above, the Appellant suffered minor head injury. There was no
history of seizure after he was discharged on the next day of the accident.
The compensation of `25,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering and
`10,000/- towards conveyance and special diet cannot be said to be low
so as to call for any interference by this Court.
13. The overall compensation of `86,728/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is
just and reasonable.
14. The Appeal has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.
15. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 19, 2012
vk
