R-5 (Part - III)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 17/2005
% Date of decision: 20th April, 2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Ram N. Sharma, Adv.
versus
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of `15,81,500/- has been awarded to respondent No.1. The appellant seeks reduction of the award amount. Respondent No.1 has filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 7th September, 1995 resulted in the grievous injuries to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 suffered crush injuries of penis and testicles resulting in impotency and loss of both the testicles. The Claims Tribunal has awarded `80,000/- towards medical treatment/special diet/conveyance, `31,500/- towards loss of income/loss of leave, `5,00,000/- towards loss of earning capacity, `4,20,000/- towards artificial MAC.APP.No.17/2005 Page 1 of 4 implant, `2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering `3,00,000/- towards permanent disability and `50,000/- towards future medical expenses/loss of longevity of life/miscellaneous heads. The total compensation awarded is `15,81,500/-.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged following grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-
(i) Respondent No.1 is working with the Delhi Police and has not suffered any loss of earning capacity.
(ii) Respondent No.1 has not got the artificial implant done and therefore, is not entitled to any compensation on that account.
(iii) The appellant is entitled to recovery rights as the offending vehicle was driven by the cleaner, who was not holding a valid driving licence.
4. Respondent No.1 is present in Court. He is working as Head Constable with the Delhi Police. No evidence has been led from the office of Delhi Police to prove the loss of earning capacity. In that view of the matter, the award of `5,00,000/- towards the loss of earning capacity is not warranted.
5. Respondent No.1 has been examined in Court and he submits that he has not got the artificial implant done and he does not want to have the same implanted in future. In that view of the matter, award of `4,20,000/- towards the artificial MAC.APP.No.17/2005 Page 2 of 4 implant is not warranted. However, Respondent No.1 submits that he would require treatment in future and, therefore, reasonable compensation be awarded towards the future treatment. The compensation of `4,20,000/- towards the artificial implant is, therefore, set aside and substituted with `1,29,250/- towards future treatment.
6. The offending vehicle was driven by the cleaner, Raj Pal Yadav who was not holding a valid driving licence. Raj Pal Yadav was charged under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 181(3) and 180(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to the recovery rights against the owner of the offending vehicle.
7. The appellant is entitled to compensation of `7,90,750/- The appeal is accordingly allowed and the award amount is reduced from `15,81,500/- to `7,90,750/- along with interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The appellant is granted recovery rights to recover the said amount from respondent No.2. The cross-objections are dismissed.
8. The appellant has deposited the entire award amount out of which 50% amount has been released to respondent No.1. Since the award has been reduced to 50%, the Claims Tribunal is directed to refund the 50% award amount back to the MAC.APP.No.17/2005 Page 3 of 4 appellant. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant is refunded to the appellant.
9. The LCR be returned back.
J.R. MIDHA, J APRIL 20, 2012 Mk MAC.APP.No.17/2005 Page 4 of 4