Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 19 September, 2017
$~R-227
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 477/2010
RAJESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Nemo.
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant, then aged about 24 years, engaged in the work of
tailoring, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred
on 23.09.2000 at about 9:55 AM, involving negligent driving of tanker
bearing registration No.HR-38C-5123, admittedly insured against
third party risk with the third respondent (insurer). He instituted
accident claim case (Suit No.343/2004) on 26.08.2004 seeking
compensation, impleading besides the insurer, the driver and
registered owner of the tanker as party respondents, the driver later
being deleted from the fray as he passed away. After inquiry, the
tribunal, by judgment dated 06.03.2010, accepted the claim for
compensation on account of injuries suffered due to negligent driving
of the tanker. It awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.3,23,192/-, fastening the liability on the insurer to pay with interest
@ seven and half (7.5%) per annum, the said amount inclusive of
Rs.2,28,000/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.70,000/- towards pain
and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects,
Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, and Rs.20,192/-
towards loss of income.
2. The present appeal was filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation. The appeal was admitted and directed
to be put in the category of 'Regular Matters' to be taken up, on its
own turn, by order dated 19.04.2012. Thereafter, it was taken up for
exploring the possibility of amicable settlement through Lok Adalat,
but with no effective results. When it is taken up for hearing, there is
no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The submissions of the
learned counsel for the insurer have been heard. The record has been
perused.
3. It is noted that the injuries suffered by the appellant included
fracture of the pelvic bone and ruptured urethra though there was no
proof adduced of such injuries having resulted in any permanent
disability. Evidence, however, would show that the claimant had
undergone prolonged treatment including surgical procedure. It is on
this account that the tribunal found it proper to award compensation
for loss of income for a period of eight months.
4. The submission in appeal that the income should have been
assumed to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month, cannot be accepted, in
absence of any formal proof of such income. At the same time, going
by the nature of avocation, there is no reason why the minimum wages
of a semi-skilled person should not have been applied, such wages
being Rs.3331.90, on the relevant date. The calculation of loss of
income for the period of eight months deserves to be enhanced to
(3331.90 x 8) Rs. 26,655.2 rounded off to Rs. 26,660/-.
5. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the prolonged
treatment undergone, the composite award of Rs.70,000/- towards
pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage
prospects is found to be grossly inadequate. The amount of
Rs.70,000/- is treated as compensation solely towards pain and
suffering and, in addition, Rs.50,000/- each are awarded for loss of
amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects.
6. In above view, the compensation in the case deserves to be
increased by (26,660/- + 50,000/- + 50,000/-) Rs.1,26,660/-.
Compensation is, thus, increased to (3,23,192/- + 1,26,660/-)
Rs.4,49,850/- rounded off to Rs.4,50,000/-.(Four Lakhs Fifty
Thousand Only.)
7. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment
dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is increased to 9% ( nine
percent) per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
realization.
8. The award is modified accordingly.
9. The third respondent (insurer) National Insurance Co. Ltd. is
directed to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite deposit with the
tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be released to the
appellant.
10. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
vk
