Delhi High Court
Krishna vs Bachan Chaudhary & Ors. on 4 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th September, 2012
+ MAC APP. 98/2010
KRISHNA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N.Parashar, Adv.
versus
BACHAN CHAUDHARY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, 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 `50,000/- awarded in
favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 24.11.2007.
2. In the absence of any Appeal by the driver, owner and the Insurer, the
finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal has attained
finality.
3. The Appellant suffered a crush injury on his left ankle as a result of
which the bone was exposed. He was immediately removed to Neelkanth
Hospital, Gurgaon; Safdarjang Hospital and Orthonova Hospital. The
injuries suffered ultimately resulted in 14% disability in respect of his left
lower limb on account of post traumatic stiffness and scaring of left foot.
4. The Claims Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of compensation
held as under:-
"...Petitioner suffered serious injury on his foot and which has
caused 14% disability due to crush. He remained in hospital
though he pleaded income of `7,000/- as Mechanic but he has not
produced any documentary proof, therefore, wages of skilled
workman of `3500/- pm is accepted by the counsel for petitioner
and Insurance Company. He remained under treatment for six
months. He is allowed expenses for confinement as loss of wages
for period of six months amounting to `21000/-. Keeping in view
serious injuries, he is allowed `15000/- for pain, shock and
sufferings. Petitioner filed medical documents and medical bills
on record as Ex.PW1/A (Colly), medical bills amounting to
`6658/- rounded to `7000/- is allowed. In addition, compensation
for 14% disability amounting to Rs. 7,000/- is awarded on
multiplier method adopting multiplier of 14 years. Total
compensation comes to `50,000/-."
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the compensation
awarded is too low and meagre. It is urged that no compensation was
awarded towards permanent disability. Admittedly, no evidence was
adduced by the Appellant to prove that his disability would in any way
affect his earning capacity.
6. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of `21,000/- for loss of
earning capacity for six months on the minimum wages of a skilled
worker. The minimum wages at the relevant time (of a skilled worker)
were `3940/- per month (rounded of to `4,000/-) Thus, the loss of income
for six months would be `24,000/- (`4,000/- x 6). Thus, I award a sum of
`24,000/- instead of `21,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
7. Immediately after the accident the Appellant was removed to Neelkanth
Hospital. He was referred to Safdarjang Hospital for further treatment.
The OPD card dated 24.10.2007 shows that the bone of Appellant's left
ankle was exposed. He was referred to emergency OT where emergency
procedure was performed and then he was referred to Plastic Surgery.
Considering the nature of injuries of his right heel/ankle and the duration
of the treatment, compensation of `15,000/- towards pain and suffering
was inadequate. I would raise the same to `40,000/-.
8. The Appellant was awarded compensation of `7,000/- towards treatment
on production of the medical bills. The Appellant remained under
treatment not only at Safdarjang Hospital but also in a private hospital i.e.
Orthonova Hospital, New Delhi. The compensation towards medical
treatment, considering the nature of injuries and the duration of treatment
is increased from `7,000/- to `15,000/-.
9. Although, there is no evidence with regard to loss of earning capacity, yet
the Appellant has suffered post traumatic stiffness and scaring of left foot,
he would have some difficulty in running. In the circumstances, he is
awarded compensation of `25,000/- towards loss of amenities and
disfigurement.
10. I would further make a provision of `5,000/- each towards special diet
and conveyance.
11. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by this Court
No.
1. Loss of Income `24,000/-
2. Pain and Suffering ` 40,000/-
3. Medical Treatment ` 15,000/-
4. Loss of Amenities & Disfigurement ` 25,000/-
5. Special Diet ` 5,000/-
6. Conveyance ` 5,000/-
Total ` 1,14,000/-
12. The overall compensation thus comes to `1,14,000/-.
13. The enhanced compensation of `64,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.
14. Respondent No.3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest with
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks and
shall be released in favour of the Appellant in terms of the order passed
by the Claims Tribunal.
15. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
16. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
vk
