Delhi High Court
Master Ram Kumar vs Manish Kumar & Ors. on 5 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th September, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.299/2011
MASTER RAM KUMAR. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Navneet Goyal &
Ms.SumanN.Rawat, Advocates
Versus
MANISH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.L.Gupta & Mr.Ram Ashray,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of `31,364/-
awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the Appellant for
having suffered fracture of his right leg in an accident which
occurred on 10.12.2008.
2. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads,
which is stipulated hereinabove:-
1. Medical expenses ` 1,364/-
2. Pain and Suffering etc. `25,000/-
3. Special Diet & Conveyance Charges ` 5,000/-
Total = `31,364/-
3. It is urged by learned counsel for the Appellant that no
compensation has been awarded to the Appellant for loss of study
and towards attendant charges. It is argued that compensation
awarded towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, special diet
and conveyance charges is low.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 National
Insurance Company Ltd. urged that keeping in view of the injury
suffered and the fact that treatment was received in Sanjay Gandhi
Memorial Hospital (a Government Hospital), the compensation is
just and reasonable.
5. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of quantum of
compensation as under:-
"As per record petitioner PW2 has remain admitted in the
hospital for two days only i.e. 10.12.2008 and 11.12.2008 and
he had suffered fracture of right leg. The OPD treatment card
of Sanjay Gandi Memorial Hospital shows that the petitioner as
OPD patient also visited the hospital three times in the month of
February, 2009. Though the petitioner has also placed on
record one treatment card of Bhagwan Mahvir Hospital, but it
is not record pertaining to the injured petitioner but is of some
other person in the name of Raj Kumar. That treatment card is
also of the period prior to the date of accident i.e. of November,
2008, whereas the accident took place on 09.12.2008 so cannot
be relied upon. Hence as per record placed on file, petitioner
remained under treatment for about two months only till end of
February, 2009. The Plea taken by PW1 that petitioner
remained under treatment for 8 months is not acceptable as
correct. Petitioner has filed certain medical bills amounting to
`1364/-. Though most of the treatment in govt. hospital was free
of cost but some of medicines were purchased from outside as
per bills. In such situation, petitioner is entitled to get
reimbursement of these medical bills of `1364/- only. The claim
of PW1 regarding spending approximately `15,000/- on
treatment of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
PW1 stated that he had also spent amount of `15,000/- on
special diet and conveyance, but it is not acceptable as correct.
There was only two days admission of the petitioner in the
hospital and 3 visits to hospital as OPD patient. The total claim
on these items at `15,000/- is highly exorbitant and cannot be
accepted keeping in view the status of the petitioner and his pre-
accidental poor financial position. No proof of spending upon
these items is brought on record. Though normally in case of
sickness and serious injury, a special diet in the form of healthy
food, juices, milk etc. is provided instead of or in addition to the
normal food but it cannot be worth `15,000/- in a period of
about two months as claimed. Accordingly I am of the view that
maximum petitioner can be paid lump sum `5,000/- towards
special diet and conveyance charges.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that due to fracture
etc., normal human life is also affected. Petitioner must have
faced difficulty and inconvenience even to perform daily
personal routine acts during period of treatment. He must have
suffered great pain and sufferings. He must not have enjoyed
the amenities of life properly for some time. He may not be able
to walk or run due to fracture of leg for some time. He has not
alleged that any future treatment is required by him. He has not
suffered any permanent disability. Such type of non pecuniary
losses cannot be assessed in terms of money but keeping in view
the status and condition of the petitioner, extent of fracture,
only two days admission in the hospital and the three visits in
the hospital as OPD patient and no future treatment is required
etc., he is granted lump sum amount of `25,000/- towards pain
and sufferings, inconvenience and loss of amenities etc"
6. A perusal of Trial Court record shows that the Appellant visited the
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital on 3rd February, 2009, 24th
February, 2009 and on an another date thereafter. On 24th February,
2009 apart from advising certain medicines, the Appellant was
advised to have the support of Crepe Bandage. The Appellant's
right leg remained in POP cast for three months and therefore the
Appellant's studies must have been effected during the period of 3-
4 months and some gratuitous service must have been rendered by
the family members. In the circumstances, I would award a
compensation of `5,000/- towards loss of study and a sum of
`5,000/- towards gratuitous service rendered by the family
members. [Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Kumari Lalita
22 (1982) DLT 170 (DB)].
7. Rest of the amount does not call for any interference/enhancement.
The enhanced compensation of `10,000/- shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Appeal till the date
of payment. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited with
Claims Tribunal along with interest and shall be kept in fixed
deposit for period of 3 years. The Appellant shall be entitled to
premature withdrawal of the amount if needed for his studies.
8. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
9. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2012
v
