Ranjan Shukla vs Ashok Kumar And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5813 Del

$~R-17, 18, 19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                            Date of decision 14.11.2014
+    MAC.APP. 756/2006

       RANJAN SHUKLA                ..... Appellant
                       Through Ms.Manjeet Chawla, Advocate
                versus
       ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.         ..... Respondents
                       Through Mr.S.L.Gupta and Mr.Ram Ashray,
                               Advocates for R-3/Insurance Company

+      MAC.APP. 757/2006

       RANJAN SHUKLA                ..... Appellant
                       Through Ms.Manjeet Chawla, Advocate
                versus
       ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.         ..... Respondents
                       Through Mr.S.L.Gupta and Mr.Ram Ashray,
                               Advocates for R-3/Insurance Company

+      MAC.APP. 776/2006

    RANJAN SHUKLA                ..... Appellant
                    Through Ms.Manjeet Chawla, Advocate
             versus
    ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.         ..... Respondents
                    Through Mr.S.L.Gupta and Mr.Ram Ashray,
                            Advocates for R-3/Insurance Company
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeals are filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal vide its award dated 28.02.2006.

2. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition are that on

28.2.1999 the appellant Ranjan Shukla along with his other family members, namely, his wife, minor daughter and son and brother was going in a taxi said to be driven at a low speed. When the taxi reached at Vashi Bridge on Pune- Bombay Road it was hit by a Tata 709 truck said to be driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the accident, the wife of the appellant Dr.Madhu Shukla and his daughter Ms.Sasha died on the spot. The appellant suffered multiple grievous injuries.

MAC.APP. 756/2006

3. This appeal pertains to the award passed in claim petition No.735/1999 pertaining to the appellant/injured Ranjan Shukla.

4. The Tribunal based on the evidence on record awarded a compensation of Rs.8,22,000/- (rounded off) to the appellant. Rs.7,23,249/- was awarded for reimbursement of medical bills, Rs.25,000/- was awarded for pain, sufferings & mental agony, Rs.10,000/- was awarded for conveyance, Rs.15,000/- was awarded for rich protienous diet. On account of disfigurement, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation stating that the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary head of pain, suffering and agony is on the lower side. She further submits that the conveyance charges are also on the lower side as the appellant had a prolonged period of treatment and also had to commute between Delhi and Bombay. She lastly submits that though the appellant was under prolonged medical treatment, no attendant charges were granted to him.

6. As per the evidence by way of affidavit of the appellant, he has received multiple injuries including multiple fractures and injuries on the right eye such

as facio (orbito maxillo mandiglo) cranial trauma, sub dural haematoma, bilateral maxillary fractures (right and left) bilateral orbital fractures (right and left) mandibular fractures, right fifth rib fracture, left distal radius fracture, right tempora parictal liner fracture in temporal sigma. He has further deposed that he was immediately removed to Centenary Hospital, Bombay. From there he was shifted to Lilavati hospital and Research Centre Bombay. He remained admitted in hospital w.e.f. 1.3.99 to 22.3.99 and undergone various operations. He was discharged on 22.3.99 but remained bed ridden for 8 weeks thereafter. He had undergone a number of operations in different hospitals including Jaslok hospital, Breach Candy hospital, AIIMS and Centre For Sight and Apollo Hospital. Firstly he was admitted in AIIMS hospital on 10.09.99 and remained there till 14.9.99 after being discharged from Lilavati hospital. Thereafter he was admitted in Jaslok hospital on 7.12.00 and remained admitted in hospital till 15.2.01. He was again admitted in Beach Candy Hospital Bombay on 14.6.01 to 21.6.01. He was operated upon there on 15.6.01. He was again admitted in Lilavati hospital on 28.9.01 and remained in that hospital till 1.10.01. He had also remained admitted w.e.f. 4.7.02 to 9.7.02 in Centanary Hospital. He was operated upon in Apollo hospital on 13.11.02.

7. It is also on record that on the date of the accident the appellant was 38 years old and he was working as a junior engineer getting a salary of Rs.9,000/- per month. Given the nature of sufferings of the appellant, I enhance the compensation for pain, suffering and mental agony from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.

8. It is also apparent that the appellant has had a prolonged period of treatment and would have had to commute often to hospitals, doctors, etc. I

enhance the compensation for conveyance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

9. On attendant charges, it is on record that the appellant had been under medical treatment for about two and half years. He had been regularly visiting hospitals and getting himself treated. It is obvious that he would have required assistance for his daily movements and needs. I award Rs.50,000/- for attendant charges.

10. The total compensation would now workout at Rs.8,88,249/-as follows:-

       Reimbursement of medical bills         :       Rs.7,23,249/-
       Pain, sufferings & mental agony        :       Rs. 1,00,000/-
       Conveyance                             :       Rs. 25,000/-
       Rich proteinous diet                   :       Rs. 15,000/-
       Disfigurement                          :       Rs. 25,000/-
       Attendant charges                      :       Rs. 50,000-/-
       Total                                  :       Rs.9,38,249/-

11. The respondent Insurance Company may deposit the additional compensation amount as per the above directions along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit before the Registrar General of this court. On receipt of the said amount, the Registrar General shall release the said amount to the appellant proportionately as per the directions in the award.

12. The appeal stands disposed of.

MAC APP.757/2006

13. This appeal pertains to the award passed in claim petition No.736/1999. The petition was filed by the appellants on account of the death of Dr.Madhu Shukla, the wife of appellant No.1 and the mother of appellant No. 2 in the same accident as described above. Dr.Madhu Shukla was said to be an MBBS doctor running her own nursing home under the name and style of 'Women's

Care' at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi said to be earning Rs.1,75,331/- per annum. IT returns for the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were placed on record.

14. The Tribunal Awarded a total compensation of Rs. 24,70,000/- (rounded off). Rs.24,41,600/- was awarded for loss of dependency; Rs. 25,000/- was awarded for loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the compensation for non-pecuniary damages is extremely on the lower side. She submits that for loss of love and affection only Rs.25,000/- has been awarded whereas the deceased is survived by a small child (the age of the child is not mentioned in the affidavit by way of evidence of PW-1 Ranjan Shukla). It is averred that the mother was taking care of the child and now as there is nobody to look after the child, the father has to engage a maid servant for which a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month is being paid. It is next averred that funeral expenses has been awarded at a lower side and no loss of estate has been granted. It is further averred that pendente lite interest was awarded @ 6% per annum instead of at least 7.5%. It is further claimed that the litigation expenses have also not been paid.

16. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 while giving compensation under various heads has described compensation for loss of love and affection as loss of care and guidance. The absence of a mother would necessarily mean that the child would suffer from loss of care and guidance of the mother. I may also note that as the deceased was an earning member of the family, the appellants have been granted a sum of Rs.24,41,600/- on the account of loss of dependency also. The

compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency and loss of love & affection for minor children would take care of any domestic help that they may have to be engaged for taking care of the child. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I enhance compensation awarded for loss of love and affection which is also described as loss of care and guidance for minor child from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

17. Regarding the interest, it is claimed for the period after filing of the claim petition. The same is discretionary for the Tribunal and there are no reasons to interfere with the same.

18. The compensation awarded would not justify grant of any amount for litigation expenses.

19. I may however note that the Tribunal has also not granted loss of consortium. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (supra). on loss of consortium has said as follows:

"17.. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and

reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium."

20. In view of the above, I award Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium.

21. The total compensation would now payable come to Rs.25,46,600/- as follows:-

       Loss of dependency                     :       Rs.24,41,600/-
       Los of love and affection/
       loss of care and guidance              :       Rs. 50,000/-
       Loss of consortium                     :       Rs. 50,000/-
       Funeral Expenses                       :       Rs. 5,000/-
       Total                                  :       Rs.25,46,600/-

22. The respondent Insurance Company may deposit the additional compensation amount as per the above directions along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit before the Registrar General of this court. On receipt of the said amount, the Registrar General shall release the said amount to the appellants proportionately as per the directions in the award.

23. The appeal stands disposed of.

MAC. APP.776/2006

24. This appeal pertains to the award passed in claim petition No.737/1999 for enhancement of compensation awarded on the death of the minor girl, namely, Ms.Sasha. She also died in the same accident that took place on 28.02.1999. She was five years old.

25. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi & Ors. vs. Musafir Paswan & Ors. 2005 ACJ 99 awarded a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-.

26. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks enhancement of this

compensation relying upon the judgment of this High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Farzana & Ors., 2009 ACJ 2763. A perusal of the judgment of this court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Farzana & Ors. (supra) would show that this court has held that loss of dependency needs to be computed based on a notional income of Rs.15,000/- using the multiplier of 15 which comes to Rs.2.25,000/-. This court also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Malik & Anr. vs. Kiran Pal & Anr., 2009 ACJ 1924 which awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- for future prospects and Rs.75,000/- for non- pecuniary damages and total compensation came to Rs. 3,75,000/-

27. The judgment of this court would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the minor was 7 years old studying in P.D. Public School. In the present case the deceased was a 5 year old girl studying in Delhi Public School. I enhance compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,25,000/- to Rs. 3,75,000/-.

28. The respondent Insurance Company may deposit the additional compensation amount as per the above directions along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit before the Registrar General of this court. On receipt of the said amount, the Registrar General shall release the said amount to the appellants proportionately as per the directions in the award.

29. The appeal stands disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J NOVEMBER 14, 2014 rb