Dismissed

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Master Sachin Chauhan (Minor)

Delhi HC9 Jul 2018MAC.APP./102/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of `6,47,120/- for grievous injuries. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the quantum justified, though it directed reclassification of `1,00,000/- from disfiguration to loss due to disability.

What did the court decide?

Compensation amount to be released as per Award; sum of `1,00,000/- to be reclassified as loss due to disability; statutory deposit refunded.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs Master… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: July 09, 2018

¶3

- MAC.APP. 102/2013

¶4

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ....Appellant Through: Mr. Shahdab Khan, Advocate for Ms.Garima Prashad, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

MASTER SACHIN CHAUHAN (MINOR) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.N. Prashar, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

(ORAL)

¶10

Impugned Award of 20^th October, 2012 grants compensation of `6,47,120/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum to respondent/injured- Sachin, aged 11 years, on account of grievous injury suffered by him in a vehicular accident, which took place on 15^th June, 2009. The facts as noticed in the impugned Award are as under:-

¶11

“The brief facts, as stated by petitioner, are that on 15.06.2009, petitioner was coming from Badaiun to Delhi, by Badaiun Roadways bus bearing no. UP-25T-9103 and the driver of the said vehicle was driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit a stationary tractor trolley. The petitioner and other passengers suffered injuries and the petitioner was taken to EMO District Hospital, Bulandshahr, U.P. and had suffered grievous injuries all over his body.”

¶12

To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) has relied upon

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

MAC.APP. 102/2013

¶15

evidence of PW-1, Suresh Chauhan, father of injured and PW-2, Dr. Binod Kalita, Orthopeadic Specialist and as per evidence of this witness, injured had suffered 71% disability in relation to left upper limb. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered. The breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal is as under:-

¶16

1. Compensation towards pain and suffering	`1,00,000/-
2. Loss of amenities and enjoyment	`1,00,000/-
3. Compensation towards disfiguration	`1,00,000/-
4. Loss of earning capacity due to injuries	`2,07,675/-
5. Compensation towards loss of marriage prospects	`1,00,000/-
6. Compensation towards loss of studies for 3 months	`15,000/-
7. Expenses towards medical bills	`9,444/-
8. Compensation towards conveyance and specialdiet (without bills)	`15,000/-
Total	`6,47,119/-<br>(rounded off to<br>`6,47,120/-)

¶17

Since appellant had questioned the assessment of functional disability, therefore, vide order of 18^th May, 2016, respondent-injured was directed to appear before the Medical Board of ‘Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences’ (IHBAS) to ascertain the extent of neurological disorder and as per report received from IHBAS vide letter of 25^th January, 2017, the neuropsychological and locomotor disability (left hemiparesis) is assessed to be 45%, which is permanent in nature.

¶18

Learned counsel for appellant-owner assails impugned Award on the ground that quantum of compensation granted is on the higher side

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

MAC.APP. 102/2013

¶21

and it needs to be suitably reduced. Learned counsel for appellant-owner submits that compensation of 1,00,000/- granted under the head of _“disfiguration”_ is unjustified, as respondent-injured had not suffered any disfiguration on account of injuries suffered in this accident. It is further submitted by counsel for appellant-owner that the compensation of 1,00,000/- granted under the head of “pain and sufferings” is on the higher side, as the disability suffered by injured is not 71% but 45% and so, compensation granted under the other heads also be reduced.

¶22

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-injured supports the impugned Award and maintains that the compensation granted is just and proper. 6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence on record, I find that the Tribunal has erroneously granted compensation under the head “disfiguration” . Infact, the compensation of 1,00,000/granted under this head needs to be converted into the head of _“loss suffered due to disability”_ . Although the functional disability as per Report of 25<sup>th</sup> January, 2017 from _IHBAS_ is 45%, but I find that the compensation of 1,00,000/-granted under the head “pain and suffering” and other heads is just and proper. Such a view is being taken as PW2- Dr. Bimal Kalita in his evidence has categorically stated that the disability suffered by injured is of permanent in nature and there is no likelihood of improvement or deterioration in the percentage of disability.

¶23

In view of above, this Court finds that the compensation granted to respondent-injured is justified and no case for reduction of compensation is made out. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to forthwith release the amount of compensation to respondent-injured in

¶24

MAC.APP. 102/2013

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

terms of impugned Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.

¶27

With aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.

¶28

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

JULY 09, 2018

Page 4 of 4

MAC.APP. 102/2013

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Master Sachin Chauhan (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Master Sachin Chauhan (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance Genreral Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pramod Kumar Maurya & Ors.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Darshana & Ors.

Darshana & Ors. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ganga Baksh Singh & Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Afsana & Ors.

Sachin Kumar @ Pankaj Vs Mahender Singh and Ors.