THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING P.LTD.

MAC. APP. No.574/2007

Page 1 of 4 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 7th August, 2012 + MAC. APP. No.574/2007

SUDARSHAN LAL LUTHRA

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal, Advocate

Versus

KAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U D G M E N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

MAC. APP. No.574/2007

Page 2 of 4 the record was weeded out. The Claims Tribunal made a guess work with regard to the award of Rs.20,000/- towards the expenditure on medical treatment. It further awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and amenities in life and loss of income. A further sum of Rs.2,500/- was awarded towards conveyance and special diet. 4. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) envisages grant of compensation which must be just and reasonable. Thus, the compensation should neither be a pittance nor a bonanza. 5. The Appellant was an old man. According to him, he gave instructions to an Advocate to file the Claim Petition, but could not keep track thereof and the counsel expired. Thus, a fresh Claim Petition was filed after nine years of the accident, that is, in the year 2005. 6. Trial Court record shows that immediately after the accident, the Appellant was admitted in Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital. The MLC Ex.PW2/2 shows that the Appellant suffered central dislocation of left hip. A disability certificate was obtained by the Appellant after filing of the instant Appeal on 01.04.2010 whereby he was declared to be suffering from 45% disability on account of post-traumatic Arthritis (Left) Hip. AW2, Dr. K.L. Kalra examined by way of additional evidence during pendency of this Appeal deposed that the central dislocation of hip restricts daily activities like sitting, cross-legs, running, squatting, running upstairs because of pain. Thus, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- each awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities was on the lower side. The same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- under each head as against Rs.10,000/- each awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

MAC. APP. No.574/2007

Page 3 of 4 7. According to the Appellant, he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by way of private tuition. No evidence was adduced with regard to the same. According to him, he was getting a pension of Rs.6,000/- per month. Any income beyond Rs.40,000/- per annum in the A.Y. 1997-98 was subject to Income Tax. No Income Tax Return was placed on record. No cogent evidence was produced to show that the Appellant was engaged in private tuition. In the circumstances, it would be difficult to assess the exact loss of earning capacity. Considering that the accident took place in the year 1996, I would make a provision of Rs.30,000/- as loss of earning capacity on account of disability as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Similarly, the compensation of Rs.2,500/- awarded towards conveyance and special diet is increased to Rs.10,000/- ( that is, Rs.5,000/- each towards conveyance and special diet). 8. The compensation awarded is tabulated as under: Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and Suffering `10,000/- `25,000/- 2. Loss of Enjoyment and Loss of Amenities in Life ` 10,000/- ` 25,000/- 3. Loss of Income/Future Income ` 10,000/- ` 30,000/- 4. Conveyance/Special Diet ` 2,500/- ` 10,000/- 5. Reimbursement of Medical Expenses ` 20,000/- ` 25,000/-

Total ` 52,500/- ` 1,15,000/-

MAC. APP. No.574/2007

Page 4 of 4 9. Thus, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.62,500/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment. 10. The enhanced compensation of Rs.62,500/- along with interest shall be deposited by the Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks. The same shall be released to the Appellant on deposit. 11. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. 12. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 07, 2012 pst