Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Mukti Jana & Anr. on 24 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 24, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 788/2015 & C.M. 23509/2015
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Komal Dhingra & Mr.J.P.N.Shahi,
Advocates
Versus
MUKTI JANA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 16th July, 2015 grants compensation of
`4,00,635/- with interest @ 9% per annum to respondent-injured-Mukti
Jana, aged 39 years, on account of grievous injury suffered by
respondent-Injured in a vehicular accident, which took place on 18th
November, 2013. The facts as noticed in the impugned Award are as
under:-
"Brief facts, as stated in the petition are that on
18.11.2013 at about 08.30 AM, Mukti Jana along with his
brother was riding a scooter no. DL-6SP-2546 was
proceedings from their home at Hari Nagar, PS. Badarpur
to Patiala House Courts and while they reached near Tata
Indicom Office at Mathura Road, New Friends Colony, at the
same time a motorcycle bearing No. DL-SCB-8380, being
driven rashly and negligently and at a very high speed, hit
from back side the scooter of the petitioner, resulting into
injuries to the petitioner as well as the pillion rider. It is
stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the said vehicle. It is claimed that petitioner was
removed to LNJP Hospital and was admitted from
19.11.2013 to 12.12.2013, where he remained under
treatment as a outdoor patient and incurred Rs.50,000/- on
his treatment, Rs.30,000/- on special diet, Rs.20,000/- on
conveyance, Rs.30,000/- spent on attendant, Rs.25,000/- on
physiotherapy and future expenses of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated
that petitioner was 39 years and was running Canteen (Tea
Shop) at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and due to accident, the petitioner has
not been able to attend his business for about 9 months.
Injured is stated to have suffered pain, agony, shock, besides
financial losses and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- has been
claimed as compensation."
2. To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") has relied upon
evidence of injured and Dr. Anshul Goel (PW-2), who has proved the
medical treatment record and as per evidence of this witness, injured had
sustained fracture and dislocation of left ankle. On the strength of
evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered. The breakup of
compensation awarded by Tribunal is as under:-
Head of Compensation Amount (in Rs.)
Loss of Income during treatment `88,946/-
Deformity `50,000/-
Future Treatment `25,000/-
Pain & Suffering `1,00,000/-
Special Diet `20,000/-
Conveyance `20,000/-
Attendant Charges `50,000/-
Loss of enjoyment and life `25,000/-
Medical Expenses `11,689/-
Physiotherapy `10,000/-
Total `4,00,635/-
3. Learned counsel for appellant-insurer assails impugned Award on
the ground that quantum of compensation granted is on the higher side
and it needs to be suitably reduced.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-injured supports
the impugned Award and maintains that the compensation granted is just
and proper.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that the medical card of respondent-injured issued by
Lok Nayak Hospital bears endorsement of 15th September, 2014 to the
effect that respondent-injured is unable to bear the weight fully, without
support and he has been advised surgical operation for correction of ankle
anthrodesis, a surgical procedure to reduce the pain. The deformity of the
left ankle of respondent-injured is evident from the medical record and
the photographs on record. In light of evidence of Dr. Anshul Goel (PW-
2), the compensation of `50,000/- granted under the head of 'Deformity'
is justified. Respondent-injured is a tea vendor and he claimed that he
used to earn `16,000/- per month and because of this accident, he could
not work for about five months.
6. Upon perusal of the evidence of respondent-injured and medical
record, I find that the compensation of `88,946/- granted to respondent-
injured under the head "Loss of income during treatment" is not at all
exorbitant. Dr. Anshul Goel (PW-2) in his evidence has categorically
stated that respondent-injured needs to undergo a surgical operation,
therefore, the compensation granted under the head "Future Treatment"
is quite justified. Compensation of `1,00,000/- has been granted under
the head "Pain & Suffering". Considering the nature of injury sustained
by respondent-claimant and the period of hospitalization and the fact that
respondent-injured still has to undergo surgical operation, I find that sum
of `1,00,000/- under this head cannot be said to be on the higher side.
The compensation granted under the heads of "Special Diet" and
"Conveyance" of `20,000/- each and `50,000/- under the head
"Attendant Charges" and `25,000/- under the head "Loss of Enjoyment
of Life", commensurates with the nature of injury suffered by respondent-
injured. The compensation of `11,689/- granted under the head "Medical
Expenses" and `10,000/- granted under the head "Physiotherapy" is duly
supported by documentary evidence on record.
7. In view of above, this Court finds that the compensation granted to
respondent-injured is justified and no case for reduction of compensation
is made out. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to
forthwith release the amount of compensation to respondent-injured in
terms of impugned Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to
appellant.
8. With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 24, 2018
r
