Delhi High Court
Leela Singh vs Bahadur & Ors. on 28 October, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28th October, 2013
+ MAC.APP. 812/2013
LEELA SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Shoumik Mazumdar for
Mr.Pratap Singh, Advocate.
Versus
BAHADUR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP. 812/2013
1. The instant appeal was listed for the first time on 02.09.2013 before
this Court, when at the request of counsel for the appellant; this matter was
adjourned to 09.09.2013.
2. On the said date also, at the request of learned counsel for the
appellant, the matter was adjourned for today, i.e., 28.10.2013.
3. However, notice has not yet been issued in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is again seeking
an adjournment which has been declined by this court.
5. Vide the impugned award dated 21.08.2012, the learned Tribunal has
granted compensation for a sum of Rs.59,412/- with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
6. The present appeal is filed for enhancement of the above noted
compensation on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in
considering loss of income and the compensation granted towards non-
pecuniary heads is also on the lower side. Rate of interest granted by the
learned Tribunal is also challenged by the appellant being on lower side.
7. On perusal of the impugned award, it is emerged that the appellant has
filed bills for an amount of Rs.2,015.02 towards medical expenses and the
same being connected with the treatment of the injuries received by the
appellant in the accident in question were allowed by the learned Tribunal
after rounded to Rs.2,100/-.
8. No evidence in regard to the income/loss of income has been led by
the appellant and in the cross-examination, it is stated that he was working
with an Advocate and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the learned
Tribunal in absence of any record regarding the salary, considered the
income of the appellant on the basis of minimum wages as Rs.6,656/- per
month, prevalent at the relevant time.
9. Accordingly, keeping in view the nature of injuries, learned Tribunal
granted Rs.13,312/- towards loss of income for a period of two months.
10. As the appellant had suffered fracture of humerus bone, fracture of
base of one metatarsal and has been under treatment for about three months,
therefore, a lump sum amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering was
allowed by the learned Tribunal in favour of the appellant.
11. Therefore, keeping in mind the nature of the injuries, I am of the
opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation along
with interest @ 9%. Thus, I do not find any discrepancy in the award passed
by the learned Tribunal.
12. Hence, there is no reason to enhance the compensation amount.
13. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed.
CM Nos. 13472/2013 (for exemption) & 13473/2013 (for delay)
With the dismissal of the appeal itself, both these applications have
become infructuous. The same are dismissed accordingly.
SURESH KAIT, J.
OCTOBER 28, 2013
sb
