Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1612 (DEL)

Rajinder Singh v. R. M. Soni

2012-05-02

G.P.MITTAL

body2012
Judgment : G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.28,151/-awarded in favour of Rajinder Singh who suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 23.08.1985. 2. At the time of the accident, the Appellant was working as a Meter Reader in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU) and was earning a salary of Rs.2226.15P per month (as deposed by PW-1). 3. The Appellant suffered injuries on various parts of his body including crush injuries on the right leg. He suffered fracture of both bones in the right leg. He was operated upon in Hindu Rao Hospital. He then received treatment in Safdarjung Hospital and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. On account of the treatment he took leave for the period of about 13 months. As per the Disability Certificate issued by Dr. S.P. Mandal, there was permanent disability to the extent of 40% in respect of his right lower limb. 4. Since there is no challenge to the impugned judgment by the driver, the owner or the Insurance Company, the finding on negligence between the parties has become final. 5. The compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) is tabulated hereunder:- Sl. No. Compensation under Awarded by the Claims Tribunal various heads 1. Loss of Leave for nine months Rs.4,500/- 2. Pain and Suffering Rs. 15,000/- 3. Special Diet & Conveyance Rs. 5,000/- 4. Medical Bill Rs. 3,651/-Total Rs. 28,151/- 6. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:- (i) The compensation towards Loss of Leave was awarded to the Appellant on the basis of minimum wages for a period of nine months although it was established that he was getting a salary of Rs.2226.15P per month and he had to obtain leave for a period of 383 days. Thus, it is urged that the Appellant was entitled to the compensation for loss of leave for the above said period. (ii) Although, the Appellant did not suffer any damage on account of loss of earning capacity because of permanent disability, as he continued to work with DESU on the same post, yet, he was not awarded any compensation towards permanent disability and loss of amenities in life. (iii) The compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is low. 7. (ii) Although, the Appellant did not suffer any damage on account of loss of earning capacity because of permanent disability, as he continued to work with DESU on the same post, yet, he was not awarded any compensation towards permanent disability and loss of amenities in life. (iii) The compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is low. 7. It is established from PW-1’s testimonythat the Appellant remained on medical leave from 26.08.1985 to 07.08.1986 and then from 24.11.1988 to 31.12.1988. He also deposed in August, 1985 that the Appellant was getting salary of Rs.2226.15P per month. 8. This accident took place on 23.08.1985. The Appellant was entitled to the compensation for Loss of Leave for 383 days @ 2226.15P per month which comes to about Rs.28,000/-. The compensation for Loss of Leave is thus enhanced from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.28,000/-. 9. The Appellant’s testimony that there was shortening of his right leg and that it is not in proper shape, was not challenged in cross-examination. His testimony that even in the year 1997 (i.e. after 12 years of the accident) he was unable to walk properly was not disputed in the cross-examination. The Disability Certificate Ex.PW-5/14 issued by Dr. S.P. Mandal shows that the Appellant suffered shortening of his right leg and foot. His permanent disability was assessed as 40%. Although, the Disability Certificate has not been issued by a Board of Doctors, yet in the absence of any challenge to the same by the Respondents, I would rely on the same on the basis of the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Anuj Sharma, (2006) 128 DLT 528 . 10. Considering that this accident took place in the year 1985, I would award him a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards Loss of Amenities and Permanent Disability. 11. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. It is not disputed that the Appellant suffered serious injuries resulting into permanent disability. He had to undertake a prolonged treatment for over a year. Considering the value of rupee in the year 1985, the compensation of Rs.15,000/-appears to be just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 12. The compensation is thus reassessed as under:- 13. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from Rs.28,151/- to Rs.76,651/-. 14. He had to undertake a prolonged treatment for over a year. Considering the value of rupee in the year 1985, the compensation of Rs.15,000/-appears to be just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 12. The compensation is thus reassessed as under:- 13. The overall compensation is thus enhanced from Rs.28,151/- to Rs.76,651/-. 14. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the rate of interest should have been awarded from the date of filing of the Petition. The Claims Tribunal held that the Appellant repeatedly amended the Claim Petition and adjournments had to be granted to the Respondents for filing written statement to the amended petitions. On many of the dates, the Appellant did not take steps for the service of notice on the Respondents. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was justified in granting interest only w.e.f. 01.02.1994. 15. The enhanced compensation of Rs.48,500/-shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 01.02.1994 (as granted by the Claims Tribunal) till the date of the deposit with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi. The Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within six weeks. 16. The amount so deposited shall be released to the Appellant immediately. 17. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.