Delhi High Court
Y.L. Malhotra vs Sahab Ali Khan & Ors. on 18 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~R35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.1043/2006
Y.L. MALHOTRA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Peeush Sharma, Adv.
Versus
SAHAB ALI KHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Garima Prashad, Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 18.10.2006, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.
2. Vide this appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount as noted above.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the
appellant received injuries in the accident took place on 04.06.2001 when he
was travelling along with his wife and others in a FIAT Car No. DNH-1485
driven by Mr. Vinod Oberoi. They were coming from Rishikesh and were
going towards Haridwar. When they reached near Tiraha Shampur just
opposite Police Check Post, their car was hit by a bus bearing no. UP-15-D-
1784, which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1.
4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the appellant suffered fracture of
acetabulum with Posterior dislocation of right hip joint and segmental
fractures of both the bones of left forearm (each of two bones of left forearm
were broken in three places). Initially, he was admitted in Kolmet Hospital
in Delhi from 05.06.2001 till 10.06.2001 and he was discharged with
traction on a splint to continue for a period of six weeks. His left forearm
was put under plaster. He was again admitted in the aforementioned hospital
on 15.07.2001 and was discharged on 17.07.2001 when nailing was done.
The injuries have been proved by PW4, Dr. Ved Prakash Kharbanda.
5. Since, there was no disability certificate on record, therefore, vide
order dated 08.03.2010 passed by this court, Medical Superintendent of
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital was directed to constitute a Medical
Board to assess the permanent disability of the appellant. Accordingly, vide
report dated 04.06.2010, the Disability Board opined as under:
"Patient is a case of fracture acetabulum with post dislocation right
hip and fracture both bones forearm. His disability in relation to
lower limbs is 10% (Ten Percent)"
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that Ld. Tribunal has
ignored the permanent disability received in the accident and awarded a sum
of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of salary, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance
charges, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
suffering on the lower side.
7. Ld. Counsel further submits that as per report dated 04.06.2010,
disability of the appellant is assessed to 10% pertaining to both lower limbs
and has prayed this court to assess the functional disability and grant the
compensation accordingly.
8. Keeping in view the injuries received by the appellant and the fact that
he admitted in the hospital twice and the two surgeries he undergone, justice
would be met if Rs.20,000/- is granted towards conveyance charges,
Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.35,000/- towards pain and
sufferings.
9. It is ordered accordingly.
10. As the appellant has received 10% permanent disability as per the
disability report dated 04.06.2010, I assess 5% functional disability while
relying upon the dictum of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011) 1
SCC 343. Accordingly, the injured is entitled for compensation on account
of loss of income due to permanent disability.
11. I note, Ld. Tribunal has failed to grant any amount towards the
attendant charges, whereas, PW3, Smt. Kusum Lata in her statement
recorded on 19.09.2002 deposed that she worked as a maid at the house of
the appellant for five months w.e.f 06.06.2001 @ Rs.2,000/- per month. She
used to perform the entire household work and also used to look after the
appellant. Thereafter, she used to clean the utensils, wash clothes and clean
floors at a monthly salary of Rs.500/- per month.
12. I note, an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges has been
awarded to the wife of the appellant, who was also a claimant before the Ld.
Tribunal. Therefore, keeping in view the statements of the PW3, Kusum
Lata and the injuries received by the appellant, I award an amount of
Rs.5,000/- towards the attendant charges.
13. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:-
Sr. Heads Calculation as Calculation as per
No. per MACT this Court
1. Loss of income Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-.
2. Future loss of income Nil Rs.25,200/-
on account of
permanent disability
3. Medical expenses Rs.35,000/- Rs.35,000/-
4. Towards conveyance Rs.15,000/- Rs.30,000/-
and special diet
5. Towards pain and Rs.20,000/- Rs.35,000/-
sufferings
6. Attendant Charges Nil Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,60,200/-
Accordingly, the compensation is assessed at Rs.1,60,200/-.
14. Resultantly, an amount of Rs.60,200/- is enhanced (Rs.1,60,200 -
Rs.1,00,000).
15. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the appeal till realization of the amount.
16. The respondent No.2 / UPSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with the Registrar General of this Court within a
period of six weeks from today, failing which, appellant / claimant shall be
entitled for penal interest @ 12% per annum on account of delayed payment.
17. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the appellant / claimant in terms of the impugned award
dated 18.10.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps
by him.
18. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 18, 2014
jg
