Full Judgment Text
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Judgment delivered on: 20 February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.667 /2013 & CM No.11182/2013
RIYA DUTTA. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Nilofar Qureshi and Ms.Rehnuma,
Advocates.
Versus
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP. No.667 /2013
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
30.11.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation as
under:-
“1 Compensation for loss of earning capacity NIL
on account of permanent disability
2 Compensation for the expenses incurred on NIL
Medical treatment
MAC.APP. 667/2013 Page 1 of 4
3 Compensation for conveyance expenses Rs.70,000/-
and special diet
4 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
5 Compensation for loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
6 Compensation for physical disfigurement due Rs.2,00,000/-
to squeezing of right eye and neuralgia and
persistent epiphora
7 Compensation for Reduction of Matrimonial Rs.2,00,000/-
prospects
8 Compensation for loss of studies Rs.1,50,000/-
---------------------
Total Rs.8,20,000/-
----------------------
Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the amount was also awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
2. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount as noted above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant has
submitted that in the absence of guidelines for determining the disability on
account of squeezing of eyes and other ailments of the appellant especially
in case of a young unmarried girl, the Board did not determine the
percentage of the disability suffered by the appellant, therefore, the learned
Tribunal did not award any compensation on account of loss due to
permanent disability.
MAC.APP. 667/2013 Page 2 of 4
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to
consider that the appellant being a young girl having whole life to live and to
study, definitely the injuries received and subsequent disease to the appellant
would put restrictions on the enjoyment of her life. She has to use spectacles
after the accident otherwise she feels headache. Moreover, her right eye has
squeezed.
5. Learned counsel submitted that though the appellant/claimant suffered
a permanent disease, namely, Neuralgia and regular watering of eyes and
due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she received physical
disfigurement and reduction of facial beauty. Despite the facts noted above,
the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal towards marriage
prospects is very less.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal also failed
to consider that because of Neuralgia, there are other complications like pain
in her eyes; therefore, she is unable to concentrate on her studies. In
addition, she missed her goal of life to go for MBBS/Engineering as she
cannot give long sittings for studies. Despite, the learned Tribunal has
granted a less amount towards loss of studies.
7. Admittedly, the appellant has not received any permanent disability.
She has completed her Graduation and is pursuing BBA, as informed by the
learned counsel for the appellant. She is presently about 24 years of age.
The appellant has failed to prove that there has been any loss of study in a
particular year or even thereafter due to the injuries received in the accident.
MAC.APP. 667/2013 Page 3 of 4
8. Keeping in view the above noted facts, the learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.2,00,000/- for
physical disfigurement. Rs.2,00,000/- for reduction of matrimonial prospects
and Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of studies.
9. In motor accident cases, the Tribunals and the Courts have to grant
just compensation. It should not be a bounty or enrichment, however, has to
be compensatory in proportion to the injuries received or losses occurred. In
the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has
granted just compensation.
10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to enhance
the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11. Hence, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby
dismissed.
CM No.11182/2013 (for delay)
With the dismissal of the appeal itself, this application has become
infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 20, 2014
Sb/RS
MAC.APP. 667/2013 Page 4 of 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Judgment delivered on: 20 February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No.667 /2013 & CM No.11182/2013
RIYA DUTTA. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Nilofar Qureshi and Ms.Rehnuma,
Advocates.
Versus
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
MAC.APP. No.667 /2013
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
30.11.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation as
under:-
“1 Compensation for loss of earning capacity NIL
on account of permanent disability
2 Compensation for the expenses incurred on NIL
Medical treatment
MAC.APP. 667/2013 Page 1 of 4
3 Compensation for conveyance expenses Rs.70,000/-
and special diet
4 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
5 Compensation for loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
6 Compensation for physical disfigurement due Rs.2,00,000/-
to squeezing of right eye and neuralgia and
persistent epiphora
7 Compensation for Reduction of Matrimonial Rs.2,00,000/-
prospects
8 Compensation for loss of studies Rs.1,50,000/-
---------------------
Total Rs.8,20,000/-
----------------------
Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the amount was also awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
2. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount as noted above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant has
submitted that in the absence of guidelines for determining the disability on
account of squeezing of eyes and other ailments of the appellant especially
in case of a young unmarried girl, the Board did not determine the
percentage of the disability suffered by the appellant, therefore, the learned
Tribunal did not award any compensation on account of loss due to
permanent disability.
MAC.APP. 667/2013 Page 2 of 4
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to
consider that the appellant being a young girl having whole life to live and to
study, definitely the injuries received and subsequent disease to the appellant
would put restrictions on the enjoyment of her life. She has to use spectacles
after the accident otherwise she feels headache. Moreover, her right eye has
squeezed.
5. Learned counsel submitted that though the appellant/claimant suffered
a permanent disease, namely, Neuralgia and regular watering of eyes and
due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she received physical
disfigurement and reduction of facial beauty. Despite the facts noted above,
the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal towards marriage
prospects is very less.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal also failed
to consider that because of Neuralgia, there are other complications like pain
in her eyes; therefore, she is unable to concentrate on her studies. In
addition, she missed her goal of life to go for MBBS/Engineering as she
cannot give long sittings for studies. Despite, the learned Tribunal has
granted a less amount towards loss of studies.
7. Admittedly, the appellant has not received any permanent disability.
She has completed her Graduation and is pursuing BBA, as informed by the
learned counsel for the appellant. She is presently about 24 years of age.
The appellant has failed to prove that there has been any loss of study in a
particular year or even thereafter due to the injuries received in the accident.
MAC.APP. 667/2013 Page 3 of 4
8. Keeping in view the above noted facts, the learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.2,00,000/- for
physical disfigurement. Rs.2,00,000/- for reduction of matrimonial prospects
and Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of studies.
9. In motor accident cases, the Tribunals and the Courts have to grant
just compensation. It should not be a bounty or enrichment, however, has to
be compensatory in proportion to the injuries received or losses occurred. In
the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has
granted just compensation.
10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to enhance
the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
11. Hence, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby
dismissed.
CM No.11182/2013 (for delay)
With the dismissal of the appeal itself, this application has become
infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 20, 2014
Sb/RS
MAC.APP. 667/2013 Page 4 of 4