Satish Kumar vs M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded to him for having suffered fracture of bone of left leg in an accident which occurred on 26.09.1987. In order to establish his case, the Appellant examined ten witnesses. Most of the witnesses examined by him are on the factum and the extent of injuries suffered by him.

Since there is no Appeal by the owner, driver or the insurer, I am not to go into the finding of negligence which has become final between the parties.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant underwent treatment for a period of one year. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards special diet, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income for one year and Rs. 20,000/- on account of non-pecuniary damages is inadequate.

The Appellant proved on record the OPD slips Exs PW9/1 to PW9/9 which go to show that the Appellant was under treatment for about one year. PW10 Dr. A.K. Singh, the Consultant of Orthopaedics, Safdarjang Hospital was examined by the Appellant on 26.09.1987. His testimony that although his fracture had united, but he suffered shortening of his left leg and limping and restriction of the movement of knee and ankle remained unchallenged. Although the Appellant claimed loss of income for one year to be Rs. 36,000/-, but he was silent about his monthly or annual income. In the A.Y.1988-89 any income beyond Rs. 18,000/- was taxable. Thus, the Claims Tribunal rightly took the income of the Appellant to be Rs. 800/- per month to award a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income for one year. Similarly, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance and special diet was just and reasonable in view of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1987. But, at the same time the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages was on the lower side considering that the Appellant suffered permanent disability. I am conscious of the fact that the extent of the permanent disability has not been given, perhaps the Appellant did not consider it necessary or was not advised to obtain a permanent disability certificate.

The Appellant was aged 24 years at the time of the incident. In the circumstances, I would award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards disfigurement and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities and permanent disability.

There is an overall enhancement of Rs. 25,000/- which shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the filing of the Petition till the date of the award i.e. 11.07.2000 and @ 7.5% per annum from 12.07.2000 till its deposit in this Court.

The Respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch within six weeks in the name of the Appellant.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms. Order Dasti to the counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company.