Delhi High Court
Mohd. Anis Ahmed vs Vipin Kumar And Ors. on 19 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~R40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.136/2007
MOHD. ANIS AHMED ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms. Monika, Adv. for
Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
Versus
VIPIN KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, 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 04.12.2006, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs.54,000/- with interest @ 7% 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. The facts of the case are that the appellant received injuries in the
roadside accident took place on 16.03.2004, due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of Truck no. HR-38-G-0731. The claimant deposed
that accident had taken place due to sole rash and negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle.
4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
appellant received grievous injuries in the accident, however, qua non-
pecuniary damages, Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation on a lower side.
5. On perusal of the trial court record it reveals that PW3, Dr. Aditya
Maheshwari from GTB Hospital stated that the appellant had suffered
fracture of shaft femur right side and clavicle left side. The injured was
given traction in Orthopaedic Unit and was operated on 22.03.2004 and K
nail was inserted in his shaft femur. He was advised rest for at least 3-4
months and six weeks after the operation, he was allowed to move from the
bed.
6. PW3 has further stated that nail inserted during the operation might be
required to be removed if the patient feels any problem.
7. The appellant filed medical bills totalling of Rs.1,645/- Ex.PW2/9 to
PW2/25.
8. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the
appellant spent an amount of Rs.40,000/- on his treatment, conveyance and
special diet. However, the Ld. Tribunal had denied by recording that except
the bills Ex.PW2/9 to PW2/25, no other bills have been filed on record by
the appellant.
9. Keeping in view the injuries received by the appellant and the
treatment he underwent, Ld. Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,000/-
each on account of treatment, conveyance and special diet and thus total
compensation amount of Rs.6,000/- was granted under the heads noted
above.
10. Ld. Tribunal further awarded compensation for an amount of
Rs.18,000/- on account of loss of income suffered by the appellant and
Rs.25,000/- on account of mental pain and agony. Moreover, an amount of
Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards future treatment.
11. The accident had taken place on 16.03.2004. Ten years have already
passed. Therefore, keeping in view the value of money during that period, I
am of the considered, Ld. Tribunal has granted sufficient compensation
towards all the heads as claimed by the appellant.
12. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal.
13. Same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 19, 2014
jg
