Delhi High Court
Rameshwar Dutt Sharma vs Akash Pawar & Anr. on 20 September, 2017
$~R-243
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 624/2010
RAMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
AKASH PAWAR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant, employed as Assistant Sanitary Inspector with
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), suffered injuries in motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 13.05.2007 on being hit by car
bearing registration no. DL 4CH 2269, admittedly insured against
third party risk with the second respondent (insurer) for the period in
question, the injuries including fracture of right femur bone. He
instituted accident claim case (petition no. 163/2010) on 11.07.2007
alleging that the said accident had been caused due to negligent
driving of the car by the first respondent. The tribunal held inquiry
and, by judgment dated 03.06.2010, returned a finding accepting the
claim on the principal of fault liability holding the first respondent to
have been negligent. The said finding has attained finality as it was
not questioned by any appeal by the affected parties.
2. The tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.
31,907/- directing the insurer to pay the same with interest @ 7.5%,
the said amount inclusive of Rs.1,907/- towards medical expenses, Rs.
25,000/- towards pain & suffering and Rs.5,000/- for special diet with
no further amount added towards loss of income for the reason the
claimant had availed of medical leave of absence from his employer.
3. The appeal at hand was filed seeking enhancement raising the
grievance that the compensation awarded is inadequate.
4. The appeal was admitted and put in the list of regular matters by
order dated 05.05.2011. When it is taken up for hearing there is no
appearance on behalf of the appellant. The matter has been heard with
the assistance of counsel for second respondent and by perusal of the
tribunal's record.
5. It is noted that when the appeal was taken up for the first time
on 20.09.2010, the counsel for the appellant wanted to place on record
further evidence regarding medical expenditure. It is noted that while
appearing as his witness (PW-1) on the strength of his affidavit
(Ex.PW-1/A), the appellant had claimed total medical expenditure in
the sum of Rs. 70,000/-. He, however, placed on record the proof of
Rs. 54,907/- only (Ex.PW-1/4). The tribunal reduced the amount by
Rs. 53,000/- in view of the admission of the claimant that the said
amount had already been reimbursed under the mediclaim policy. This
approach of the tribunal cannot be faulted as the claimant cannot have
double advantage. Inspite of the opportunity granted by order dated
20th September, 2010, no further proof of any other medical
expenditure has been submitted in the appeal. Therefore, there is no
case made out for any increase under the head of medical expenditure.
6. However, the approach of the tribunal in declining the loss of
income cannot be accepted as PW-1 (claimant) had proved that he was
in receipt of Rs. 16,604/- as monthly salary from MCD and that he had
remained absent from duty for a period of six months. This loss of
leave also had to be translated in terms of money inasmuch as the
leave represents value. The amount of Rs. 99,264/- towards the loss of
leave salary, thus, will have to be added to the compensation.
7. There is no case made out for any further addition to the award.
The award amount is increased to (31,907 + 99,264) Rs.1,31,171/-,
rounded off to Rs. 1,32,000/-. (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Two
Thousand Only). Needless to add, it shall carry interest as levied by
the tribunal.
8. The second respondent is directed to satisfy the enhanced award
by requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days making it
available to be released.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
nk
