New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Anuj Sharma And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 278 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal should not have awarded Rs. 5,19,418 towards loss of earning capacity, Rs. 1,00,000 on account of permanent disability and Rs. 75,000 on account of pain and suffering.

2. The appellant has not disputed in his arguments compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 awarded towards reimbursement of medical expenses.

3. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In this regard the relevant findings of learned Tribunal in para 20 and part of para 21 of the impugned award are reproduced below:

(20) The medical condition of the claimant was further explained by Dr. Amitabh Goel, PW 4, from Metro Multispeciality Hospital, Noida (U.P.). He categorically testified that due to the brain injuries, the speech power of the patient has been irreparably affected and he cannot speak fluently. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant has been under regular medical treatment of Dr. Amitabh Goel right from the beginning. On court question, he explained that in medical jurisprudence, the case of the patient is that of left hemiteratic, which is described as a condition where the patient is stable but physically disabled. On further court question, Dr. Amitabh Goel firmly stated that patient's suffering from the kinds of injuries as in this case, would show improvement to whatever extent they could within a span of 2-3 years from the date of suffering from an injury but thereafter, their condition becomes stable and he categorically stated that it was unlikely that the claimant would regain his normal speech power as it might have been prior to the accident. Apart from the speech power, corroborating the evidence of the claimant, Dr. Goel testified that the patient is unable to use his left hand for any purpose as he cannot move his fingers and in this regard too, he categorically testified that even regular physiotherapy is not going to improve the motor movement except that he advised that patient should be treated by an occupational therapist, which would help the patient regarding his motor movement so far as the left hand is concerned. The doctor, however, ruled out the patient suffering from regular or intermittent memory lapse. I may state that I am unable to find any element of bias in the evidence of Dr. Amitabh Goel, PW 4 and to my mind, his evidence makes a lasting impression about the status of physical disabilities afflicting the claimant.

(21) It may be indicated that claimant is B.Com. and G.N.I.I.T. qualified in the field of E.Com., Com., C.Com. and quality management. He was in the first year of his M.B.A. when he met with this accident and it is in the evidence that he has not been able to complete the same. Perusal of his initial appointment letter Exh. PW 3/B would show that, inter alia, the duties and responsibilities of the claimant included extensive P.R. work in the nature of arranging telephone interviews and participating in resource management and giving suggestions to improve working environment. I may say fortunately the employer company has been kind enough and has redrafted the agreement Exh. PW 3/C albeit with more or less same nature of duties except that evidently the claimant is now not in a position to engage himself in various P.R. exercises. Further, the annual emoluments of the claimant have been drastically cut down from Rs. 3,29,280 to Rs. 1,62,000 on gross basis. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the claimant here made an impassioned plea that claimant who was a debater and engaged in active sports, cannot involve himself in any such activities. So much so that he faces social ostracism. He stressed the point that operations of computers requires use of both hands and claimant cannot use his left hand.

4. As per evidence before the learned Tribunal the respondent-claimant had been cleared for appointment as Program Analyst in Silicon Valley Systech, California, U.S.A. and was waiting for clearance of his H1/B1 visa from U.S. Embassy. He was 25 years old at the time of accident and had a brilliant career with his educational qualifications being a B.Com. and G.N.I.I.T. qualified in the field of E.Com., Com., C.Com. and quality management. He was also doing M.B.A. In fact learned Counsel for the appellant admitted that the learned Tribunal was right in awarding Rs. 2,02,400 on account of loss of leave salary, as a result of the said accident. He was working from home on half salary.

5. As per statement of Dr. Amitabh Goel, the respondent-claimant was unable to speak properly having suffered brain injury. His reading power had been adversely affected and he was unable to convey and effectively communicate his feelings and thoughts to others. He had suffered memory loss and was slow in responding to the queries. As per the doctor it was unlikely that the respondent would regain his normal speech power as he had prior to the accident. The doctor also testified that the respondent was unable to use his left hand for any purpose as he could not move his fingers. His left leg was also drastically weakened. In view of the nature of job, his educational qualifications, the age, the salary the said respondent was earning and the medical deficiencies and disabilities suffered by the respondent No. 1, I feel that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and adequate.

6. I do not think there is any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that without a specific disability certificate from a government hospital, no compensation on account of disability should have been granted by the learned Tribunal. Respondent-claimant has relied upon the doctor who was treating him. The said doctor was also cross-examined. In case the appellant wanted to dispute his testimony, it could have produced other doctors in support. There is no reason to disbelieve and discard statement of Dr. Amitabh Goel.

7. In view of the evidence on record, learned Tribunal has held that respondent-claimant had suffered loss of earning capacity to the extent of 10 per cent only. The compensation awarded is just, fair and reasonable.