Delhi High Court
Ram Singh vs Umesh Prasad Yadav & Anr on 19 September, 2017
$~R-226
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 471/2010
RAM SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
UMESH PRASAD YADAV & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) in accident claim case (petition
no.295/2006) instituted on 30.01.2001, which was decided by
judgment dated 04.03.2010 with award of Rs.20,000/- having been
granted, the liability to pay having been fastened on the first and
second respondents, they having been described as the driver and
registered owner respectively of the car bearing registration no.DL-
1CE-6618.
2. The appellant presses for enhancement of the award of
compensation.
3. It is noted that though both the respondents had been served,
only second respondent appeared through counsel in response. The
appeal was admitted and put in the category of 'regulars', to come up
on its own turn. When it is taken up for hearing, there is no
appearance on either side.
4. On perusal of the tribunal's record, it is noted that the
appellant's case was that on 23.01.2000 while crossing the road from
Badli in the direction of his house, he was hit by the car driven by the
first respondent in rash manner, this resulting in he suffering grievous
injuries, his leg having been put in plaster. At the inquiry, it is noted
that there was no valid or effective insurance policy taken out by the
registered owner (second respondent) in respect of the car for the
period in question to cover the third party risk. The tribunal thus did
not hold the insurance company, which was impleaded in the claim
petition, responsible. On consideration of the evidence of the claimant
(PW-1), the tribunal accepted the case of the claimant for
compensation. The evidence had been adduced that the claimant had
suffered multiple fractures. Though he had been discharged from
Hindu Rao Hospital where he had been taken on the date of the
accident, he had later taken treatment from ESI Hospital as an indoor
patient till 16.03.2000. It is on that basis that the tribunal awarded
Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. The tribunal noted the
evidence that though the treatment had been taken from ESI Hospital,
apparently the claimant had not filed any documentary proof of
expenditure on the treatment and did not award anything under the
head of medical expenses. Rs.2,000/- was added towards special diet.
The claimant had led evidence (Ex. PW1/E) to prove that he had
remained absent from duty as Foreman in Bharat Rolls Hardaring for
the period 25.01.2000 to 30.09.2001. His salary for the relevant
period was Rs.3,018/- p.m.. The tribunal failed to take into
consideration that the period of absence was for 20 months, and did
not make any award towards loss of income.
5. In the given facts and circumstances, the awards for loss of
income for the period of absence from duty and on account of pain
and suffering are found to be deficient. The salary for the period of 20
months would be [Rs.3,018/- x 20] Rs.60,360/-. Thus, an amount of
Rs.60,360/- needs to be added under the said head. Having regard to
the nature of the injuries suffered and the period of treatment
undergone, award under the head of pain and suffering is increased to
Rs.50,000/- which would entail further increase by Rs.35,000/-.
6. Thus, there shall be an enhancement in the award by
[Rs.60,360/- + Rs.35,000/-] Rs.95,360/-, rounded off to Rs.96,000/-
(Rupees Ninety six thousand only). Needless to add, it shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
7. The respondents shall continue to be liable jointly and severally
to pay the enhanced portion of the award as well. They are called
upon to satisfy the award as modified by requisite deposit with the
tribunal within 30 days, making it available to be released to the
claimant.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
