Delhi High Court
Bhim Singh vs Samser Singh & Ors. on 14 September, 2017
$~R-205
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 14th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 302/2010
BHIM SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Nemo.
versus
SAMSER SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was the claimant before the tribunal in accident
claim case (Suit No.31/06/09) instituted on 29.08.2006, it having been
decided by judgment dated 03.02.2010. His claim was under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the averments that on
08.07.2006 at about 7:30AM while crossing the road on a bicycle in
front of Lokesh Cinema on Main Rohtak Road, Nangloi, he was hit by
a truck bearing registration No.HR-63-1188 (the truck), driven in
negligent manner by the first respondent. The vehicle is registered in
the name of the second respondent and was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the third respondent (insurer). The tribunal, after
inquiry accepted the claim for compensation on fault liability and
awarded compensation, calculating it thus:-
Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.)
1. Expenses incurred on treatment 35,000/-
2. Expenses incurred on special diet 7,500/-
3. Expenses incurred on conveyance 2,500/-
4. Compensation for loss of salary and 13,000/-
income
5. Compensation for mental pain and agony 30,000/-
Total 88,000/-
2. The liability to pay the above compensation was fastened on the
insurer.
3. By the appeal at hand, the claimant has submitted that the
medical expenses were in the sum of Rs.1,77,226/- but the same was
not granted. He is also aggrieved on the ground that he had remained
absent from duty for 81 days and has been compensated only for 42
days. The claimant also submitted that the rate of interest should have
been levied at 24% per annum.
4. The appeal was admitted and was directed to be shown in the
list of 'REGULARS' as per order dated 30.04.2012. When it is taken
up for hearing, there is no appearance for the appellant. The appeal has
been considered with the assistance of the counsel representing the
insurer.
5. Upon perusal of the tribunal's record it is noted, that the
appellant was in the employment of Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) at the relevant point of time and his salary was in the sum of
Rs.9,000/- per month. He had submitted two bills showing medical
expenditure one, for the amount of Rs.25,497/- for the period
08.07.2006 to 13.07.2006, the accident having occurred on
08.07.2006, reflecting his treatment as a general patient. He had also
relied upon another bill (Ex.PW-3/A) which reflected expenditure in
the sum of Rs.49,455/-. The tribunal rejected the said other bill on the
ground it showed the patient (the person treated i.e, the appellant), to
have been entertained on account of "Panel - DDA". This reasoning,
in the opinion of this court, was not correct to reject the
reimbursement of the expenditure in the sum of Rs.49,455/-. The
medical institution where the treatment was taken may have had some
arrangement with the employer of the claimant but, this would not
mean that such expenditure was reimbursed or unauthorized.
6. The claimant had also proved that he had remained on leave
from the date of accident (08.07.2006 to 27.09.2006). The tribunal,
however, granted compensation only for 42 days observing that the
leave for 32 days was "commuted leave" which would not result in
any corresponding loss. Withdrawal from the leave account, whatever
be the nature of leave was for reasons attributable to the injuries
suffered in the accident, and so a loss which deserves to be suitably
compensated. Therefore, the said view of the tribunal also cannot be
upheld. The loss of income corresponding to the leave for such 34
days, thus, must be added. It is computed as (9,000/- x 32 ÷ 30)
9,600/-.
7. Adding the medical expenditure of Rs.49,455/- referred to
above, and leave salary, the award deserves to be increased by (9600/-
+ 49,455/-) Rs.59,055/- rounded off to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty
Thousand only).
8. Ordered accordingly.
9. There is no good reason why such exorbitant rate of interest as
of 24% should be levied. It is directed that the enhanced portion of
the award shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
10. The third respondent is directed to satisfy the modified award
by requisite deposit with corresponding interest with the tribunal
within 30 days, making it available to be released to the claimant.
11. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
vk
