Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Kailash Nath Aggarwal & Ors on 16 April, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16th April, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 377/2011
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
KAILASH NATH AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R1.
Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv. for R7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present appeal, appellant / Insurance Company has assailed
the award dated 03.02.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded
compensation in favour of the respondent no. 1 / injured as under:
Non-pecuniary damages
1. Pain and suffering : Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Loss of amenities : Rs.1,50,000/-
3. Damages due to amputation
of leg and disfigurement : Rs.50,000/-
4. Loss of expectation of life : Rs.50,000/-
5. Future medical expenses on
Prosthesis : Rs.50,000
Total : Rs.4,00,000/-
Compensation
1. Loss of Prosthesis : Rs.1,79,712/-
2. Loss of income : Rs.28,079/-
3. Special Diet : Rs.40,000/-
4. Conveyance : Rs.20,000/-
5. Non pecuniary as above : Rs.4,00,000/-
Total : Rs.6,67,791/-
Interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the
date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 03.10.2005 till its realization was also
awarded by the Ld. Tribunal.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
Ld. Tribunal without appreciating the fact that the concerned Doctor has not
been examined to prove the injuries as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011)1
SCC 343, however, proceeded to pass an award of Rs.6,67,791/- including
Rs.4,00,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages consisting Rs.1,00,000/-
towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.50,000/-
for damages due to amputation of leg and disfigurement, Rs.50,000/- for loss
of expectation of life and Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses on
prosthesis. Thus, the amount awarded on other heads are also on the higher
side.
3. Admittedly, respondent no. 1 was 55 years of age on the date of
accident and was working with Rites Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana. He was
drawing a salary of Rs.28,079/- per month and was income tax payee. Due
to the accident in question, he sustained grievous injuries and was removed
to AIIMS and thereafter got admitted in Fortis Hospital. He remained on
bed for many months. He spent about Rs.4,25,000/- on his treatment,
medicines, diet and conveyance etc. He received permanent disability of
60% due to the accident and purchased artificial limb for a sum of
Rs.1,79,712/- from Prosthetic and Orthotic Rehabilitation Centre.
4. Respondent no. 1 / claimant has proved his medical bills Ex.CW1/N
collectively, treatment record Ex.CW1/M, MLC Ex.CW1/J, Salary
Certificate Ex.CW1/K, disability certificate Ex.CW1/P issued by CMO
Ghaziabad and certificate of payment of artificial limb Ex.CW1/Q.
5. It is also proved on record that respondent no. 1 / claimant was
working as a Deputy General Manager with Rites, which happened to be a
Public Sector Company belonging to Government of India Enterprises. As
per Ex.CW1/S1, the victim was superannuated from Rites on 30.04.2006
and all his dues were paid to him.
6. It is an admitted fact that the victim was not paid for artificial limbs to
the extent of Rs.1,79,712/-. However, his other medical expenses were
reimbursed.
7. PW3, Sh. Akhil Narayan deposed that respondent no. 1 / claimant was
given medical leaves due to which half pay was paid to him. He was
sanctioned special disability leaves w.e.f 06.09.2005. As per Ex.CW1/K,
victim was drawing a salary of Rs.28,079/-. On account of the accident, he
lost 1½ of two month's salary which comes about Rs.28,079/-.
8. In view of the facts recorded above , I do not find any discrepancy in
the compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal in favour of the respondent
no. 1 / claimant. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
9. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and the
balance compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the
respondent no. 1 / claimant on taking steps by him.
CM. No. 8710/2011
With the dismissal of the instant appeal, instant application has
become infructuous and dismissed as such.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 16, 2014
Jg/RS
