Delhi High Court
Ram Niwas vs Ram Singh & Ors on 30 August, 2017
$~R-149
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30th August, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 635/2009
RAM NIWAS ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate
versus
RAM SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar, Adv.
for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 09.07.2005 involving negligent driving of a
truck bearing registration no.HR-38E-9885 and instituted accident
claim case (petition no.04/2009) on 05.12.2005 seeking compensation.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), after inquiry,
by judgment dated 11.09.2009, upheld the claim for compensation on
the principle of fault liability and awarded compensation in the sum of
Rs.13,94,000/- in his favour directing the third respondent (the insurer
of the offending vehicle) to pay though accepting its plea of breach of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy also granting it
recovery rights against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle,
they being first and second respondents herein. The compensation
was calculated by the tribunal thus :-
Loss of Income Rs.95,000/-
Medical treatment Rs.3,24,000/-
Conveyance Rs.15,000/-
Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/-
Loss of earning capacity Rs.7,29,600/-
Pain and sufferings / loss of enjoyment of life Rs.75,000/-
Future treatment Rs.1,50,000/-
Total compensation Rs.14,18,600/-
Less interim compensation (-) Rs.25,000/-
Total compensation Rs.13,93,600/-
Rounded off Rs.13,94,000/-
3. Though the appeal to seek enhancement was filed on various
grounds, it is pressed only to seek enhancement of compensation
under the non-pecuniary heads of damages of pain and suffering / loss
of enjoyment of life awarded at Rs.75,000/- only.
4. The first and second respondents inspite of due notice and
having even appeared earlier are not present at the hearing. The
learned counsel for the appellant and for the insurance company have
been heard and the record perused.
5. The appellant was working as a private tutor and as a principal
of a school in Jahangir puri, Delhi. He holds the degrees of M.Com
and B.Ed. and was at that time 35 years old when he suffered injuries
which have rendered him permanently disabled, his functional
disability having been assessed to the extent of 40%, this arising out of
crush injury of the right hand, the effect thereof being in the name of
fixed flexion deformity right elbow, the movement of the said elbow
being restricted, there also being stiffness in the fingers of the right
hand.
6. In the given facts and circumstances, award should have been
granted separately under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of
amenities of life. The award of Rs.75,000/- as composite sum under
the said two heads is inadequate. Having regard to the nature of
injuries suffered instead of the award granted by the tribunal under the
said two heads, Rs.1 Lakh each under the said two heads is granted.
This would mean, there would be a total increase in the award in the
sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand
Only). Ordered accordingly. Needless to add, the enhanced portion of
the award shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
7. The enhanced portion of the award with corresponding interest
shall be paid by the insurance company by requisite deposit with the
tribunal within 30 days. It shall be released by the tribunal in the form
of interest bearing fixed deposit receipt in the nationalized bank in the
name of the appellant for a period of seven years with right to draw
monthly interest.
8. Needless to add, the recovery rights granted to the insurer
remain undisturbed.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 30, 2017/yg
