Rajeev Kumar Mishra v. Vinay Yadav & Ors

INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 nandan

n/ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date ofJudgment: 12.9.2011 + SH.RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA _ Appellant Through: Ms.Plnki Talukdar, Advocate. Versus SH.VINAY YADAV & ORS. Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, T. (Oral) 1. The award impugned is the Award dated 07.2.2011 vide, which the compensation in the sum of ?8,07,414A was awarded in favour petitioner; the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries; he permanent of 50%; 30% permanent taken into account as disability. 2. Record shows that the victim had suffered an accident on . Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 17.01.2007 while he was travelling on his two wheeler scooter; an Indigo car was the cause of the accident; grievous injuries were sustained by the petitioner; petitioner is 34 years of age and at that time as per the case of the petitioner he was carrying on the business of trading and manufacturing of jeans-pants under the name and style of 'M/s G.T. Jeans' at Mukheijee Nagar, New Delhi. Further contention is that he was also hospitaliazed 18.01.2007 to 10.2.2007; he suffered 'hemiparasis' on the right side portion of the body; this made him disabled and unable to work. 3. permanent recorded as per medical certificate was 50%; as noted supra the Tribunal had noted 30% which is the first grievance of the petitioner. second grievance is that loss of income has computed for a period of four months only, however, he remained bed ridden for more than one year; the third grievance is that although the two wheeler scooter of the petitioner had been damaged yet no compensation has been awarded on this count. The fourth grievance of the petitioner that he had undergone physiotherapy for which he had incurred a cost of ?1,50,000/- but he had awarded ?50,000/- only on count. Last grievance relates to the amount awarded under the head of 'pain and suffering' which according to him the figure computed at ^40,000/- is again on lower side. 4. The impugned Award had made the calculation as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court relating to compensation to be awarded to a victim of grievous injury. The Apex Court in the case of Rai Kumar Vs. Aiav Kumar & Anr..(2011) 1 SCC 343 had laid down following guidelines for grant of compensation injured victim of an accident: "General principles relating to compensation in injury cases The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his hability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inabihty to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K.Subramonia Iyer, v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair- AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd.-1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby -1970 AC 467)." 5. In the instant case the victim has been paralyzed on the MACAPPEAL No.531/2011 Page3 of 6 right side; 50% disability has been suffered as per the disa