Delhi High Court
Soudan Singh vs Sanjeev Kumar @ Babloo & Ors. on 7 November, 2017
$~R-419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 7th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1040/2011
SOUDAN SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
SANJEEV KUMAR @ BABLOO & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was one of the ten persons moving as passengers
in three wheeler scooter (TSR) bearing registration no. DL 1W 0120,
when it met with an accident on 03.01.2008. He suffered injuries that
included fractures of the backbone and right side ribs. It may be
added here itself that he was travelling in the TSR as a passenger
sitting next to the driver on the front seat. On his accident claim case
(MACT 1118/10/08), instituted on 19.03.2008, the tribunal by its
judgment dated 07.07.2011 held that the TSR driver (first respondent)
was negligent. It also held that the claimant/appellant had also been
guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 25% since he had
chosen to travel in the TSR, which was over-loaded, his place in the
TSR being most inappropriate. The tribunal also found the appellant
to have suffered functional disability to the extent of 30%. It
computed compensation as under:-
S.No. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of earning capacity Rs. 2,58,149/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,86,288/-
3. Pain & sufferings etc. Rs. 1,50,000/-
4. Special diet & conveyance charges Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs. 6,14,437/-
2. However, on account of contributory negligence, the insurer
(third respondent) was directed to pay Rs. 4,60,828/- with interest @
7.5 % per annum.
3. The appeal seeking enhancement is pressed only with the
grievance that a composite sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head of
pain & sufferings, inconvenience, mental shock and loss of amenities
etc. was inadequate and that rate of interest levied is unduly low.
4. It is noted that the evidence would show that the claimant had to
undergo prolonged treatment including surgical procedures wherein
steel plates and screws were inserted in his spinal column. He has
been rendered permanently disabled on account of loss of senses in the
lower limb, making him wear a belt. He would also be constrained to
wear special shoes for the remainder of his life. In these
circumstances, the grievance about the inadequacy of the award
under the non-pecuniary heads of damages is found to be
correct. The award of Rs. 1,50,000/- is treated as the award granted
towards pain & sufferings, inconvenience and mental shock. In
addition, Rs. 1,00,000/- is added towards loss of amenities of life.
5. Thus, the total compensation would come to (6,14,437 +
1,00,000) Rs. 7,14,437/- and consequently the appellant will be
entitled to receive as compensation an amount of (7,14,437 x 3/4) Rs.
5,35,827.75, rounded off to Rs. 5,36,000/- (Rupees Five lakh and
thirty six thousand only).
6. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% per annum (nine percent) from the date of
filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016
in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi
& Ors.]
7. The insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days making it
available to be released.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 07, 2017
nk
