Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd. vs Sh Praveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. on 2 April, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 2nd April, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 390/2013 & CM No. 4095/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Shantha Devi Raman and
Mr.Sanjeet Ranjan, Advocates.
Versus
SH PRAVEEN KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate
for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Rampal Singh, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM No. 4095/2014 (U/s 151 CPC)
1. Vide order dated 03.05.2013, on depositing the award amount along
with upto date interest, 60% of the same was directed to be released in
favour of the respondent/claimant in terms of the award passed by the Ld.
Tribunal.
2. Accordingly, a cheque was issued in the name of respondent No.1,
wherein it is written Praveen Kumar Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Kishanlal,
whereas father‟s name of respondent No.1/claimant is Sh.Suraj Bhan.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/claimant
submits that due to wrong mentioning of father‟s name of the respondent
No.1, the cheque issued by the Cash Branch of this Court has been rejected
by the Reserve Bank of India and the same has been returned as „unpaid‟.
4. Keeping in view the averments made in the instant application and the
submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the instant
application is allowed.
5. Accordingly, the father‟s name of the respondent No.1 is corrected as
under:-
"Praveen Kumar Aggarwal S/o Sh.Suraj Bhan"
6. The instant application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 390/2013
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
11.12.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an
amount of Rs.3,54,596/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ms.Shantha Devi Raman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/Insurance Company submits that the accident had taken place on
14.01.2001. Accordingly, a case under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered
against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., driver and owner of the offending
vehicle. She submits that respondent No.2/driver had compromised the
connected criminal matter of the accident in question and accordingly the
respondent No.1 received a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation.
3. Ms.Raman, learned counsel further submits that the claim petition in
question was filed on 13.02.2012, i.e., after a period of eleven years of the
accident. She submits that the respondent No.1/claimant has not placed on
record any proof regarding treatment taken in the span of eleven years. Thus,
he is not entitled for any compensation.
4. As per the treatment record, respondent No.1/claimant was admitted
in Hindu Rao Hospital on 15.01.2001 for posterior dislocation of right hip,
fracture ischium bone right side and schiatic nerve palsy, hip reduction and
traction was given; and he was discharged with medicines and advise for
review on 22.01.2001. He continued with the treatment till 22.03.2001 and
thereafter, advised rest for one month w.e.f. 24.04.2001.
5. PW2, Dr.Subhash Jangid, deposed that respondent No. 1 was advised
right total hip replacement for which the probable expenses was given by the
hospital as per Ex.PW1/6. He further deposed that as per the advice of
Fortis Hospital, respondent No.1 was complaining pain and he suffered
fracture of acetebulum with partial foot drop of right side about ten years
ago. Therefore, respondent No.1/claimant was advised total hip
replacement. For which, charges as per Ex.PW1/6 were Rs.3,27,100/- for
deluxe and Rs.3,66,300/- for suite.
6. PW2 also stated that the said operation charges could vary from
hospital to hospital. As per Ex.PW1/6, Rs.1,50,000/- was implant cost and
Rs.1,76,000/- were other related charges of operation. Thus, the total hip
replacement would be a major operation.
7. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
the learned Tribunal awarded compensation as under:-
"1. For implant charges Rs.1,50,000/-
2. Other charges related to operation Rs.1,00,000/-
3. For special diet and conveyance Rs. 12,000/-
4. For attendant charges (Rs.2,500 x 3) Rs. 7,500/-
5. Loss of income (Rs.2,524 x 4) Rs. 10,096/-
6. For pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/-
___________
Total Rs.3,54,596/-
___________"
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that the respondent No.1 has proved that he had
undergone the operation for the injuries received in the accident on
14.01.2001, which has been corroborated by PW2, Dr.Subhash Jangid also.
9. Moreover, recovery rights have been granted in favour of the
appellant/Insurance Company and against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e.,
driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
10. Therefore, in view of the facts noted above, the treatment undergone
by the respondent No.1/claimant and the amount spent on the treatment, I do
not find any merit in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
11. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the
balance compensation with upto date interest in favour of the respondent
No.1/injured as per the order dated11.12.2012 passed by the learned
Tribunal on taking necessary steps by him.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 02, 2014
Sb/RS
