Bhim Singh v. Samser Singh & Ors.

1. The appellant was the claimant before the tribunal in accident claim case (Suit No.31/06/09) instituted on 29.08.2006, it having been decided by judgment dated 03.02.2010. His claim was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the averments that on 08.07.2006 at about 7:30AM while crossing the road on a bicycle in front of Lokesh Cinema on Main Rohtak Road, Nangloi, he was hit by a truck bearing registration No.HR-63-1188 (the truck), driven in negligent manner by the first respondent. The vehicle is registered in the name of the second respondent and was admittedly insured against third party risk with the third respondent (insurer). The tribunal, after inquiry accepted the claim for compensation on fault liability and awarded compensation, calculating it thus:- 2017:DHC:5490

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Sl.No.                       Head                      Amount in (Rs.)       │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│      1.    Expenses incurred on treatment                        35,000/-    │
│      2.    Expenses incurred on special diet                       7,500/-   │
│      3.    Expenses incurred on conveyance                         2,500/-   │
│      4.    Compensation for loss of salary and                   13,000/-    │
│            income                                                            │
│      5.    Compensation for mental pain and agony                30,000/-    │
│                                                Total             88,000/-    │
│ 2.        The liability to pay the above compensation was fastened on the    │
│ insurer.                                                                     │
│ 3.        By the appeal at hand, the claimant has submitted that the         │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

6. The claimant had also proved that he had remained on leave from the date of accident (08.07.2006 to 27.09.2006). The tribunal, however, granted compensation only for 42 days observing that the leave for 32 days was “commuted leave” which would not result in any corresponding loss. Withdrawal from the leave account, whatever be the nature of leave was for reasons attributable to the injuries suffered in the accident, and so a loss which deserves to be suitably compensated. Therefore, the said view of the tribunal also cannot be upheld. The loss of income corresponding to the leave for such 34 days, thus, must be added. It is computed as (9,000/- x 32 ÷ 30) 9,600/-.

7. Adding the medical expenditure of Rs.49,455/- referred to above, and leave salary, the award deserves to be increased by (9600/- + 49,455/-) Rs.59,055/- rounded off to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only).

8. Ordered accordingly.

9. There is no good reason why such exorbitant rate of interest as of 24% should be levied. It is directed that the enhanced portion of the award shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.

10. The third respondent is directed to satisfy the modified award by requisite deposit with corresponding interest with the tribunal within 30 days, making it available to be released to the claimant.

11. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. R.K.GAUBA, J. SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 vk