JUDGMENT

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. The appellant/injured/claimant has preferred this statutory appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended upto date [MV Act], assailing the quantum of compensation awarded vide impugned judgment-cum-award dated 08.04.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi [Tribunal].

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the appellant met with an accident on 01.03.2013, when his motorcycle bearing No. DL-4SBY- 6546 was involved in a head-on collision with the offending car bearing No. DL-4CAQ-5071, being driven by respondent No.1/Ajay Kumar on the Airport Road near Railway Lane, Sector-01, Palam Colony, New Delhi. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the MV Act seeking compensation and it was brought to the fore that he had suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 54% as per the medical certificate (Ex. PW-1/11) in relation to right lower limb.

3. The learned Tribunal, while holding that the motor accident resulted in grievous injuries as also permanent disability to the claimant, found that it was a case of a head-on collision and based on the site plan prepared by the police during the course of investigation in respect of the accident that resulted in lodging of FIR No. 64/2013 under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] at PS Delhi Cantt., the injured claimant was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% resulting in the motor accident. Eventually, the appellant/claimant was awarded the compensation by the learned Tribunal under different heads and itemised as under:

Heads AmountMedicine and Medical treatment Rs. 7,50,000/-Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/-Disability Rs. 25,000/-Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 15,000/-Conveyance Rs. 30,000/-Special Diet Rs. 10,000/-Attendant charges Rs. 18,000/-Loss of income Rs. 6,54,000/-Total Rs. 15,82,000/-

4. Thus, after arriving at a total compensation of Rs.15,82,000/-, 50% was deducted towards contributory negligence and the claimant has been awarded Rs. 7,91,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) till its realisation, including the interim award. Evidently, as the offending car was insured with respondent No.2/insurance company, the liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon them.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT THE BAR:

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant urged that the learned Tribunal adopted a flawed approach in holding the appellant guilty of contributory negligence merely on the basis of the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer (IO) in the course of investigation arising out of FIR No.64/2013. Reference in this regard was made to the decision in the case of G. Ravindranath v. E. Srinivas, (2013) 12 SCC 455.

6. As regards the quantum of compensation, it was strenuously urged that the learned Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards the loss of earning/functional incapacity, and that functional disability has only been assessed @ 25%, thereby completely overlooking the evidence of the doctor, who testified that although the appellant would be able to stand on his feet, he could barely walk with his effective leg/right limb without help or a stick. It was pointed out that the appellant suffered as many as six fractures, remained under prolonged treatment and no compensation towards loss of income has been awarded.

7. Further, arguing that the amount of compensation for pain and suffering is on a lower side, it was pointed out that no compensation has been awarded towards loss of marital prospects. It was further urged that during the course of the present appeal, additional evidence has been led and AW-1/Dr. Hans U. Nagar was examined, who stated that based on the rates in 2014, additional expenditure to the extent of Rs.2,93,200/- would be warranted towards the future medical treatment of the appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document