Delhi High Court
Puneet Khurana vs Touseef Rashid Makroo & Ors. on 21 September, 2017
$~R-249
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 21st September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No.665/2010
PUNEET KHURANA ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
TOUSEEF RASHID MAKROO & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was injured in a motor vehicular accident that
occurred on 02.05.2007 on being hit by car bearing registration no. DL
3CV 3671 (the car), admittedly insured with the second respondent
(insurer) against third party risk for the period in question. He
instituted accident claim case (MACT 353/2008) impleading the first
respondent describing him as the driver of the car besides the insurer
(second respondent). The tribunal held inquiry.
2. During the proceedings before the tribunal both the said
respondents including the insurer (it having filed written statement)
stopped appearing and were set ex-parte. The appellant examined
himself (as PW-1) on the basis of his affidavit (Ex.PW-1/1). The
tribunal by judgment dated 18.05.2010, granted compensation in the
total sum of Rs. 1,17,300/- calculating it, thus:-
S.No. Heads Compensation
1. Medicines & treatment Rs. 55,000/-
2. Loss of Income Rs. 27,300/-
3. Pain & suffering Rs. 25,000/-
4. Conveyance, Special diet Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 1,17,300/-
3. The insurer was directed to pay the above said amount with
interest @ 9% per annum.
4. The appeal was filed seeking enhancement primarily raising the
contention that the award is inadequate for the reason the loss of
earnings have not been properly calculated and the expenditure
incurred on treatment not taken care of.
5. The appeal was entertained by order dated 05.10.2010 with
notice being accepted on behalf of the insurer. It was admitted and
directed to be taken in due course. When called out, none appears on
either side.
6. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the appellant had
proved that he had suffered fracture of the shaft of left femur bone,
which required prolonged treatment in hospital including surgical
procedure wherein inter-nailing was done. The appellant had testified
through his affidavit (Ex.PW-1/1) that he had spent Rs.1,05,374/-
towards his treatment and that from his business of grocery he was
earning Rs. 7,000/- per month and since he was unable to work for
gain on account of treatment for one year, he had to suffer loss of
income to the extent of Rs. 84,000/-. Since the respondents had chosen
to suffer the proceedings ex-parte, there being no contest, the
evidence of the appellant about medical expenditure to the tune of Rs.
1,05,374/- has gone unimpeached. Similarly he has now substantiated
the claim of income by placing on record copies of income-tax returns
(ITRs) for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The
accident having occurred in the month of May, 2007, the ITR for the
previous year submitted in March, 2007, prior to the accident, can be
taken as safe corroborative material. Going by the declaration of
income in the said document, the word of the claimant on oath,
through his affidavit (Ex.PW-1/1), cannot be doubted. In these
circumstances, he also deserve to be compensated for the loss of
income of Rs.84,000/-.
7. While the above claims, substantiated by the affidavit (Ex.PW-
1/1), deserve to be taken care of, the statement of about Rs. 50,000/-
having been spent on special diet is found to be exaggerated.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the award under the head of
medicines and treatment requires to be increased by (1,05,374 -
55,000) Rs. 50,374/- while award towards loss of income deserves to
be increased by (84,000 - 27,300) Rs.56,700/-. Put together the above
mentioned amounts require, the compensation to be increased by
(50,374 + 56,700) Rs. 1,07,074/-. Adding this to the compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the final award is increased to (1,17,300 +
1,07074) Rs. 2,24,374/-, rounded off to Rs. 2,25,000/-(Rupees Two
Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only.) Ordered accordingly. Needless
to add, it shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
9. The second respondent (insurer) 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.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
nk
