Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1209 (DEL)

New India Assurance Co. v. Kailash Nath Aggarwal

2014-04-16

SURESH KAIT

body2014
Judgment Suresh Kait, J. 1. Vide the present appeal, appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the award dated 03.02.2011, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the respondent no. 1/injured as under: Non-pecuniary damages: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- 3. Damages due to amputation of leg and disfigurement Rs.50,000/- 4. Loss of expectation of life Rs.50,000/- 5. Future medical expenses on Prosthesis Rs.50,000 Total Rs.4,00,000/- Compensation 1. Loss of Prosthesis Rs.1,79,712/- 2. Loss of income Rs.28,079/- 3. Special Diet Rs.40,000/- 4. Conveyance Rs.20,000/- 5. Non pecuniary as above Rs.4,00,000/- Total Rs.6,67,791/- Interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 03.10.2005 till its realization was also awarded by the Ld. Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Ld. Tribunal without appreciating the fact that the concerned Doctor has not been examined to prove the injuries as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011)1 SCC 343 , however, proceeded to pass an award of Rs.6,67,791/- including Rs.4,00,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages consisting Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.50,000/- for damages due to amputation of leg and disfigurement, Rs.50,000/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses on prosthesis. Thus, the amount awarded on other heads are also on the higher side. 3. Admittedly, respondent no. 1 was 55 years of age on the date of accident and was working with Rites Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana. He was drawing a salary of Rs.28,079/- per month and was income tax payee. Due to the accident in question, he sustained grievous injuries and was removed to AIIMS and thereafter got admitted in Fortis Hospital. He remained on bed for many months. He spent about Rs.4,25,000/- on his treatment, medicines, diet and conveyance etc. He received permanent disability of 60% due to the accident and purchased artificial limb for a sum of Rs.1,79,712/- from Prosthetic and Orthotic Rehabilitation Centre. 4. Respondent no. 1/claimant has proved his medical bills Ex.CW1/N collectively, treatment record Ex.CW1/M, MLC Ex.CW1/J, Salary Certificate Ex.CW1/K, disability certificate Ex.CW1/P issued by CMO Ghaziabad and certificate of payment of artificial limb Ex.CW1/Q. 5. It is also proved on record that respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 1/claimant has proved his medical bills Ex.CW1/N collectively, treatment record Ex.CW1/M, MLC Ex.CW1/J, Salary Certificate Ex.CW1/K, disability certificate Ex.CW1/P issued by CMO Ghaziabad and certificate of payment of artificial limb Ex.CW1/Q. 5. It is also proved on record that respondent no. 1/claimant was working as a Deputy General Manager with Rites, which happened to be a Public Sector Company belonging to Government of India Enterprises. As per Ex.CW1/S1, the victim was superannuated from Rites on 30.04.2006 and all his dues were paid to him. 6. It is an admitted fact that the victim was not paid for artificial limbs to the extent of Rs.1,79,712/-. However, his other medical expenses were reimbursed. 7. PW3, Sh. Akhil Narayan deposed that respondent no. 1/claimant was given medical leaves due to which half pay was paid to him. He was sanctioned special disability leaves w.e.f 06.09.2005. As per Ex.CW1/K, victim was drawing a salary of Rs.28,079/-. On account of the accident, he lost 1½ of two month’s salary which comes about Rs.28,079/- 8. In view of the facts recorded above, I do not find any discrepancy in the compensation awarded by the Ld. Tribunal in favour of the respondent no. 1/claimant. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 9. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and the balance compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the respondent no. 1/claimant on taking steps by him. CM. No. 8710/2011 With the dismissal of the instant appeal, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such.