Delhi High Court
Ram Milan Yadav vs Surender Singh & Anr. on 8 March, 2016
$~R-39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 08th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 408/2007
RAM MILAN YADAV ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Adv.
versus
SURENDER SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred at 09:10 AM on 11.11.2005 near red light close to Khalsa college,
ring road, Delhi when the bicycle on which he was riding was hit by bus
bearing registration no.DL-1PB-4821, admittedly insured against third party
risk with the second respondent (the insurer) for the period in question.
2. On his claim petition under Sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (the MV Act), registered as suit no.85/2006, the motor accident
claims tribunal (the tribunal) by judgment dated 26.03.2007 awarded
compensation in the total sum of `7,82,842/- with interest from the date of
filing of the petition till realization.
3. The claimant has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation, his grievances being that the award of compensation under
the non-pecuniary heads of pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and
attendant charges is on the lower side and no provision has been made for
future medical expenses.
4. Having heard both sides and having gone through the tribunal's
record, it is found that the claimant had suffered fracture of disc which
resulted in paraplegia rendering the appellant permanently disabled to the
extent of 75%. At the time of the accident, he was earning his livelihood
from private employment. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered
and their effect, the tribunal assessed the loss of functional disability to be
100%. This finding has attained finality as it was not challenged by the
party respondents in the claim petition.
5. The tribunal awarded `75,000/- on account of pain & suffering and
`65,000/- towards loss of amenities. It added `11,000/- towards the
attendant charges for the period of treatment but did not make any provision
for future medical expenses.
6. The case reported as Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., (2014) 5
SCC 330, is a case comparable to the one at hand. The claimant in that case
had suffered amputation of the right leg above the knee rendering him
disabled to the extent of 75%. The Supreme Court awarded `1,50,000/-
towards pain & suffering and `1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life.
Similar awards are made in the case at hand in lieu of the amounts of
`75,000/- and `65,000/- as assessed by the tribunal in the impugned
judgment.
7. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the effect suffered, the
claimant will need support of attendant and medical aid in future as well.
But, he has not come with any concrete evidence in support of claim on such
accounts. Thus, award will have to be made on the basis of some
assumptions. Following the view taken in Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir & Ors.,
(2015) 7 SCC 252, `40,000/- each is awarded towards the attendant charges
and future medical expenses, in lieu of `11,000/-.
8. As a result of above, the compensation awardable to the claimant
would get enhanced by (1,10,000+69,000) `1,79,000/-.
9. The award is enhanced accordingly. Needless to add, it shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
10. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced portion of
the compensation with corresponding interest with the tribunal within 30
days, whereupon it shall be released to the claimant by depositing it in fixed
deposit account in his name in a nationalized bank for a period of ten years
with liberty to draw monthly interest.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 08, 2016/ssc
