High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 01 DEL CK 0385

Mahender Singh (now Deceased through LRs) vs Raj Kumar and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 18 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.P. Mittal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
FAO 446 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 504 words

G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant Mahender Singh (now deceased) through LRs having died on 10.06.2005 during the pendency of the Appeal, seeks enhancement of compensation for having suffered injuries in an accident, which took place on 02.10.1994. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and conveyance and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of salary apart from Rs. 15,000/- as general damages making the overall compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.

2.

Since, the Appellant has died during pendency of the Appeal, in view of Section 308 of the Indian Succession Act his legal representatives would be entitled to only pecuniary damages. No appeal is preferred by the Respondent Haryana Roadways and thus I am not to go into the question of negligence.

3.

The Appellant as PW-2 deposed that in the accident his right leg was fractured. He suffered injuries on various parts of his body including his head. He was given 90 stitches on his head. He deposed that he remained under treatment in Hindu Rao Hospital and then with Dr. Grover, a Private Medical Practitioner. He claimed that he spent Rs. 1,50,000/- on his treatment.

4.

Unfortunately, the Appellant did not produce any evidence with regard to the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment. The Appellant deposed that he was working as a driver at the time of accident and on account of the injuries suffered by him in the right leg he could not drive any vehicle due to which he started working as a Guard. He testified that he could not attend to his work for one year.

5.

The Tribunal accepted the Appellant''s salary to be Rs. 1,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal declined to believe that apart from the salary he had the income of Rs. 2,000/- or Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Appellant''s testimony that he could not attend his work remained unchallenged. He is, therefore, required to be compensated for loss of salary for one year. The Appellant suffered fracture of shaft femur right leg resulting into the disability of more than 40%. Amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for such an injury was very meagre. In the facts & circumstances, the amount of loss of income is enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-, the amount for medical treatment is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The amount towards special diet and conveyance is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-.

6.

The enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the Appeal till the date of payment. This enhanced compensation along with interest shall be payable to the Appellant''s widow, which shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court by way of a Demand Draft in the name of the Appellant''s widow, which shall be released to her forthwith. The Respondent Haryana Roadways is directed to deposit the amount within 30 days.

7.

The Appeal is allowed in above terms.