Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Manoj Kumar & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2607 Del

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

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

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

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