OM PARKASH ARORA Vs. DINESH CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation for having suffered injuries, which took place on 5.9.1986. The Appellant was immediately taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, which he left against medical advice and got himself admitted in Tirath Ram Shah Hospital on 6.9.1986. The Appellant was operated upon for fracture of both bones of left leg and plating was done under general anaesthesia. As per the documents filed on record, the Appellant attended OPD at Safdarjung Hospital on 4.12.1986. It was alleged that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by Respondent No. 1 driver of the offending vehicle No. DBA 3502, which was owned by Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and was insured by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No. 4. A claim for compensation of Rs. 12,22,000 was made.

(2.) During inquiry before the Tribunal the Appellant himself appeared as PW-5 and deposed that he remained bed-ridden for about 2 years and there was loss of income @ Rs. 5,000 per month. He deposed that he engaged one attendant to help him for 2 years and paid him Rs. 1,500 per month. No medical evidence was produced by the Appellant to prove that on account of the injuries and the treatment given to the Appellant, he would not be in a position to work for a period of 2 years. In the absence of filing any income tax record to show that the Appellant was paying income tax, the Tribunal took the Appellant s monthly income to be Rs. 2,000 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 48,000 for loss of income. Any income beyond Rs. 15,000 in the year 1986 was taxable. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker in the year 1986 were Rs. 414. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,000 for engaging an attended @ Rs. 500 per month for 2 years i.e. Rs. 12,000. The Appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to have been spent on his treatment. He placed on record photocopies of the bills for Rs. 7,000 only. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 for his treatment as also for special diet and conveyance.

(3.) The Appellant did not produce any evidence of any permanent disability nor was it the Appellant s claim that he suffered permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 15,000 for loss of amenities/enjoyment of life. In addition, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was awarded towards miscellaneous expenses. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_661_ILRDLH22_2012_1.html</FRM>