Allowed

Bakshish Sobti v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Dec 2011FAO/707/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment enhances compensation awarded by the Tribunal for motor accident injuries. The Court increased awards for medicines, conveyance, special diet, and added compensation for loss of amenities, while rejecting a claim for loss of earning capacity due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to `1,44,170/- inclusive of loss of amenities; interest at 7.5% per annum; immediate release of `25,000/-; balance held in Fixed Deposit for three years.

Bakshish Sobti Vs Ashok Kumar & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: December 05 , 2011

¶3

- FAO No.707/2003

¶4

SHRI BAKSHISH SOBTI ..... Appellant Through Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Swati N. Sirka, Advocate & Ms.Deepshikha Chaudhary, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate for Respondent No.4 insurance company

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by the Appellant in an accident which took place on 25.01.1995. The Appellant was hit by a bus bearing DL-1P-7555 while the Appellant was going on his two-wheeler scooter No.DND-5561.

¶12

The Tribunal awarded compensation of 13,555/- towards purchase of medicines whose bills were placed on record, 2,000/- each towards conveyance and special diet, 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and 39,170/- for loss of income for ten months for which the Appellant could not attend to his work.

¶13

FAO No.707/2003 Page 1 of 3

¶14

It is averred that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is low. The Appellant was unable to preserve all the bills as he spent ` 30,000/- on purchase of medicines. The provision for conveyance and special diet and mental pain and agony is claimed to be on the lower side. It is averred that though the Appellant suffered permanent disability in respect of left lower limb to the extent of 20%, yet no compensation was awarded.

¶15

The Appellant did not produce any evidence with regard to any functional disability affecting his earning capacity. Thus, in view of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar And Another , (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Appellant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning capacity.

¶16

It was proved on record that the Appellant remained admitted in L.N.J.P. Hospital from 25.01.1995 to 01.02.1995, continued treatment in G.B. Pant Hospital and then in RML Hospital from 04.03.1995 to 14.03.1995. It was also established on record that the Appellant remained an outdoor patient upto to October, 1995. Considering that the Appellant remained under treatment for a little less than ten months, the provision towards loss of income for ten months was rightly made. The compensation granted towards conveyance and special diet was, however, on the lower side. The disability certificate Ex.PW8/3 showing 20% disability of left lower limb although issued by a private doctor, yet the fact that the Appellant would not be able to squat as stated in the disability certificate was not disputed in his cross-examination. The Appellant was entitled to be compensated for loss of amenities in life. The compensation awarded, considering the duration of the illness towards pain and suffering was on the lower side.

¶17

FAO No.707/2003 Page 2 of 3

¶18

I will proceed to tabulate the compensation under various heads as follows:

¶19

S.No.	Head of Compensation	Compensation	Compensation
		granted by the Tribunal	granted by this Court
1.	Treatment of Medicines	`13,555/-	`20,000/-
2.	Conveyance(estimated 50 visits) @`100/- per visit	`2,000/-	`5,000/-
3.	Special Diet	`2,000/-	`5,000/-
4.	Pain and Suffering	`10,000/-	`25,000/-
5.	Loss of Amenities	-	`50,000/-
6.	Loss of Income	`39,170/-	`39,170/-
	Total	`66,725/-	`1,44,170/-

¶20

The overall compensation comes to ` 1,44,170/- . The amount in excess of what has been awarded to the Appellant shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The insurance company shall be liable to pay the amount as held by the Tribunal.

¶21

The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of ` 25,000/- along with interest shall be released to the Appellant forthwith. The rest of the amount shall be held in a Fixed Deposit Receipt in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch for a period of three years.

¶22

The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

¶23

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶24

DECEMBER 05, 2011/ pst

¶25

FAO No.707/2003 Page 3 of 3

Bakshish Sobti v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakshish Sobti v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanchal & Anr. Vs Basudev & Ors.

Beena Devi & Anr. Vs Basudev & Ors.

Parvati Vs UOI & Ors.

Prahlad Vs Ramesh Kumar & Ors.

Deen Dayal & Ors. Vs Babu Lal & Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Munnavar Sultana & Ors.