Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishan Sharma & Ors. on 6 March, 2012
Author: J.R. Midha
Bench: J.R. Midha
R-11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.554/2008 and CM No.7598/2009
% Date of decision: 6th March, 2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...... Appellant
Through : Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria, Adv. for
Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv.
versus
KRISHAN SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of `5,46,336/- has been awarded to respondent No.1
2. The accident dated 12th October, 2004 resulted in grievous injuries to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 suffered multiple fractures including fracture of both bones of right leg and dislocation of left hip. He underwent two surgeries. The disability of respondent No.1 was assessed to be 85% in respect of bilateral lower limbs as per disability certificate, Ex.PX.
3. Respondent No.1 was in transport business and agriculture earning `5,000/- per month. Considering the constriction of movement, the effect of the disability on MAC.APP.No.554/2008 Page 1 of 3 earnings qua the whole body was taken as 40%. The Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of `2,894/- into consideration, applied the multiplier of 8 and taking 40% of the same, the loss of earning due to the permanent disability was assessed to be `1,15,200/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded `1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, `52,136/- towards actual and reasonable medical expenses, `50,000/- towards future medical expenses, `36,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment of one year, `25,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, `18,000/- towards the attendant for six months, `50,000/- towards shortening of life span and `1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. The total compensation awarded is `5,46,336/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged two following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) Respondent No.1 was the gratuitous passenger on the goods vehicle and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.
(ii) The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side and should be reduced.
5. With respect to the first ground, it is noted that respondent No.1 appeared in the witness box before the Claims Tribunal as PW-1 and in cross-examination, he deposed MAC.APP.No.554/2008 Page 2 of 3 that he was travelling in the vehicle along with the consignment of vegetable. In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 was not a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay compensation.
6. With respect to the second ground urged by the appellant, it is noted that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any reduction considering the 85% disability in respect of bilateral lower limbs suffered by respondent No.1 and the evidence on record. Respondent No.1 remained under treatment for a year and underwent two surgeries for the three fractures suffered by him.
7. There is no infirmity in the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The pending application is disposed of.
J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 06, 2012 mk MAC.APP.No.554/2008 Page 3 of 3