Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand vs Amit Kumar & Ors on 16 March, 2018
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th March, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 913/2013 and CM 16094/2013
SUBHASH CHAND ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.K. Dubey, Advocate
versus
AMIT KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arihant Jain and Ms.
Aakansha Dixit for Ms. Shantha Devi
Raman, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant had instituted the accident claim case (RBT MAC
petition no.271/09/08) on 23.07.2008 which, after inquiry, was
decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) by its
judgment dated 21.01.2013 holding that he (the claimant) had
sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on
24.06.2008 on account of negligent driving by the first respondent
(driver) of three wheeler scooter (TSR) bearing registration no.DL-
1RF 4010 and had been rendered permanently disabled, his functional
disability having been assessed to the extent of 15%, inter alia, on the
basis of the disability certificate (Ex. PW1/5). The Tribunal awarded
compensation in the total sum of Rs.2,18,163/- calculating it thus :-
(i). Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000/-
(ii). Loss of income during treatment Rs.14,532/-
(Rs.3633/- x 4)
(iii). Future loss of income due to permanent Rs.1,10,515.86
disability (Rs.3633/- + 30%) x 12 x 13 x
15)
(iv). Medical Bills Rs.5,115/-
(v). Conveyance Charges (without bills) Rs.5,000/-
(vi). Special diet (without bills) Rs.5,000/-
(vii). Attendant charges (Rs.2,000/- x 4) Rs.8,000/-
(viii). Loss of amenities of life / dis-figuration Rs.40,000/-
etc.
Rs.2,18,162.86
Rounded to Rs.2,18,163/-
2. The insurer of the TSR (third respondent ) had taken the plea
that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy since the driving licence carried by the first respondent was not
genuine. This plea was accepted and recovery rights were granted in
favour of the third respondent (insurer) against the second respondent
(registered owner of the TSR).
3. By the appeal at hand, the claimant sought enhancement of the
compensation.
4. Though the appeal was presented questioning the assessment of
the functional disability by the Tribunal, at the hearing, the learned
counsel arguing for the claimant submitted that he does not press for
any relief on that account and rather prays for suitable enhancement of
the compensation under the non-pecuniary heads of damages of pain
and suffering and loss of amenities of life wherein the grants are
Rs.30,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone
through the record, keeping in view the fact that the injuries suffered
were grievous on account of fracture of both bones of the left leg,
treatment having continued for four months, the same having left an
indelible mark on the quality of the life of the claimant in future, the
awards granted by the tribunal under the above mentioned two heads
are found to be inadequate. The same are increased to Rs.75,000/-
each. This would mean there shall be a net increase in the award by
Rs.80,000/-. Thus, the total compensation is enhanced to
[Rs.2,18,163/- + Rs.80,000/-] Rs.2,98,163/-, rounded off to
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only). Ordered accordingly.
6. The third respondent (insurer) will be liable to satisfy the
enhanced award by requisite deposit which would include the
enhanced portion with corresponding interest with the tribunal within
30 days. The rights of the insurer to recover from the registered owner
shall remain unaffected.
7. The appeal and the pending application stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MARCH 16, 2018
yg
