Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Akshay Sharma & Ors. on 4 June, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 12th May, 2010
Date of Order: 4th June, 2010
+ MAC APP 82/2009
% 04.06.2010
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
Advocate.
Versus
AKSHAY SHARMA & ORS. ...Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By present appeal the insurance company has assailed
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide
award dated 22nd September, 2008 to the injured on the
ground that the Tribunal wrongly considered the disability of
the injured as 22% since this disability was only in respect to
the left lower limb of the injured. The other ground put forth is
that the Tribunal wrongly took into account the minimum
wages as a factor for calculating the compensation despite the
fact, that the injured was a ten year old child and was
studying in class fourth.
2. Brief facts relevant for deciding this appeal are that on
27th May, 2004 at about 2 p.m. Mr. Akshay Sharma, a boy
studying in class fourth, was hit by vehicle bearing registration
no. DL 1LA 2784 being driven in negligent manner. The boy
suffered multiple fractures initially and was treated at Satyam
Hospital, Rohini, Delhi from 27th May, 2004 to 11th June, 2004.
In view of the seriousness of the accident, skin drafting had
also to be done. After his discharge from the hospital on 11 th
June, 2004, he continued to remain as an outdoor patient.
The Tribunal directed for assessing the disability of the child in
view of the nature of injuries sustained by the child and the
hospital assessed the disability at 22%.
3. While assessing the damages, the Tribunal considered
that the child was around eleven years of age at the time of
the accident and after about eight years he would be capable
of being employed, at least as a skilled worker and the
minimum wages at the time of his employment should be
about Rs.6,622/- and applying the multiplier of 17 and
disability of 22%, the future loss of income of the injured was
calculated as Rs. 2,97,195/-. The other damages awarded by
the Tribunal were Rs.32,000/- on the basis of actual medical
expenses, (Bills of Rs.32,007.31 were proved), attendant
charges of Rs.19,700/-, Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings,
Rs20,000/- towards special diet and conveyance and
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. Thus, the total
compensation of Rs.4,44,000/- was awarded.
4. The grievance of the insurance company is in respect of
compensation awarded against future loss of income. The
plea taken is that 22% disability was only in respect of one
lower limb not in respect of the whole body and the Court
should not have calculated future loss of income at 22 per
cent of income. It is pleaded that since the injured was a
student, his life was full of uncertainties, who could say as to
what would be the future of the student.
5. The Tribunal in this case has kept in mind the future
uncertainties of the life. There is no presumption that son of a
poor man shall, even after studies, shall turn out to be only a
skilled workman and has no probability of rising to the level of
top executive or an IAS officer or a successful business man or
a politician. The Tribunal has not considered these probable
eventualities, with which the future of every child is pregnant.
The Tribunal has taken most conservative estimate of loss of
future income of the injured on the basis of his becoming a
skilled workman. Since the child in this case was a student
and had also lost one year due to this accident, the Tribunal
did not award any compensation for loss of studies and loss of
his one academic year. The Tribunal had not taken into
account loss of his marriage prospects, etc.
6. I consider that the amount of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal in no manner could be considered excessive or a
windfall. I find no force in this appeal. Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed.
June 04, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
AK
