Delhi High Court
Shahzama vs Rakesh Kumar & Anr on 20 September, 2017
$~R-234
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 517/2010
SHAHZAMA ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
RAKESH KUMAR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Harsh Lata for Ms. Shantha
Devi Raman, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant, then aged 27 years, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that took place on 16.10.2005 when the motorcycle
bearing registration no.DL-7SZ-6515 driven by him was hit by a truck
bearing registration no.HR-63B-4498 which had come in a rash
manner. He filed accident claim case (suit no.25/06) seeking
compensation.
2. After inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal),
by judgment dated 29.03.2010, which is impugned by the appeal at
hand, upheld the case for compensation on the ground that the
accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the said truck. It
awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.14,27,200/- fastening the
liability on the second respondent (insurer) to pay with interest at the
rate of 7.5% p.a. The compensation thus awarded was calculated as
under :-
Medicines and medical treatment Rs.18,000/-
Loss of earning capacity due to Rs.9,79,200/-
disability
Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/-
Loss of future prospects of marriage Rs.1,00,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
Conveyance and special diet Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.14,27,200/-
3. The appellant feeling aggrieved came up with the present appeal
submitting that the compensation awarded is deficient.
4. The appeal was admitted and directed to be put in the category
of 'regulars' by order dated 22.11.2010. On being taken up, there is
no appearance on behalf of the appellant.
5. The appeal has been considered with assistance of the counsel
for the second respondent and upon perusal of the inquiry before the
tribunal.
6. It is noted that the appellant had proved that the injuries
suffered by him included compound fracture of the frontal region of
the head which required surgical procedures to be undergone in which
ventriculo peritoneal stunt was put in the vertical end of the brain and
another in the abdominal cavity. The aftermath of the injuries suffered
included loss of sight in the right eye and extremely poor vision in the
other eye, the medical opinion given by Dr. B. Ghosh (PW-3) of Guru
Nanak Eye Centre, Delhi leading to disability certificate (Ex. PW3/A)
confirming that he has been rendered permanently visually disabled
person, such disability being 100%. The evidence also showed that
the appellant had to undergo neurological treatment in the Lok Nayak
Hospital and G.B. Pant Hospital, his condition being such that he is
likely to suffer fits in future, the damage to the brain parenchyma
being such as cannot be repaired. It is on the basis of such assessment
that the tribunal concluded the functional disability to be 100% and
has calculated the loss of earning capacity on account of the disability
leading to the award noted above.
7. The grievance of the appellant in appeal was that the calculation
of loss of future income due to disability has been made with the help
of minimum wages of unskilled labourer and his evidence that he was
earning Rs.5,500/- as supervisor with a private company was ignored.
It is noted that the said claim of private service was not substantiated
by any cogent proof. In these circumstances, the approach of the
tribunal cannot be questioned.
8. The grievances of the appellant in appeal, however, also related
to the inadequacy of awards under other heads of damages. This
grievance is found to be correct. The tribunal has not made any
provision for future needs of medical treatment or for services of an
attendant. Though given the reason for the permanent disability
mentioned above, the case of the appellant cannot be equated with a
person who is rendered paraplegic, the condition being in relation to
the eye sight, the need for such support required suitable award under
that head as well. Similarly, the awards under the heads of loss of
amenities of life and pain and suffering are found to be deficient.
9. In above view, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is added towards
future medical expenditure while the awards under the heads of loss of
amenities of life on one hand and pain and suffering on the other are
increased to Rs.2,00,000/- each. This would mean the award would
stand enhanced by Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand
only). Ordered accordingly.
10. 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.]
11. The second respondent is directed to satisfy the enhanced award
by requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days, making it
available to be released to the claimant.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
yg
