Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Lekh Raj Pal & Ors. on 27 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:27th April, 2012
+ MAC APP. No.142/2012
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mr. Rajat Brar, Advocate
Versus
LEKH RAJ PAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `6,07,800/-
awarded to the First Respondent for having suffered a serious
crush injury in his right leg resulting into permanent disability
to the extent of 53% in relation to his right lower limb.
2. The First Respondent who was aged bout 65 years at the time of
the accident which occurred on 26.03.2009 was riding on a
bicycle when his right foot was crushed by a bus bearing
registration No.DL-1PB-9252 driven in a rash and negligent
manner by the Respondent No.2 Sagar Kumar Sharma. The
Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment granted a
compensation of `6,07,800/-, which can be tabulated
hereunder:
Sl. Compensation under Awarded by
various heads the Claims
No. Tribunal
1. Loss to Pain & Suffering `80,000/-
2. Loss of Amenities, ` 90,000/-
Enjoyment and
Disfigurement
3. Loss of Earning ` 2,55,167/-
4. Loss of Earning for Three ` 47,253/-
Months
5. Expenses towards ` 1,20,335/-
Medical Bills
6. Conveyance & Special ` 15,000/-
Diet
Total ` 6,07,755/-
(Rounded
Off to
`6,07,800/-)
3. The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are:
(i) The Respondent No.1/Claimant suffered injuries to his
right ankle only; loss of earning capacity to the extent of
` 2,55,167/- should not have been granted by the Claims
Tribunal.
(ii) The Respondent No.1's business in his absence could
have been attended to by his other family members,
employees and agents; loss of income of `47,253/- for
three months should not have been awarded to the
Respondent No.1(the Claimant).
(iii) The compensation of `90,000/- towards loss of amenities,
`80,000/- towards pain and suffering and `15,000/-
towards conveyance and special diet is on the higher side.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the First Respondent
states that the Claimant was a self-employed person and he had
to work on his own as is evident from the Income Tax Return
Ex.PW1/4, thus, the compensation awarded was very low. The
Claimant remained admitted in Bhardwaj Hospital from
26.03.2009 to 02.04.2009. He was then admitted in Life Care
Orthopaedic and Maternity Centre from 02.05.2009 to
05.05.2009. The Appellant underwent surgery under anesthesia
in both the hospitals as is evident from the treatment papers
and the bills Exs.PW1/1 to PW1/6 issued by Bhardwaj and Life
Care Orthopaedic and Maternity Centre. On account of the
crush injury in the right foot, the Claimant suffered 53%
disability.
5. Documents Exs.PW1/1 to PW1/89 were proved by the Claimant
in respect of the treatment and medicines purchased.
Considering the nature of injuries and two surgeries underwent
by the Claimant, it was reasonable to hold that the Claimant
could not attend to his work at least for a period of three
months. The Claimant had to visit the doctor even in the
months of September, 2009 and January, 2010 for follow up of
his injuries as is evident from the documents Exs.PW1/94 to
PW1/96. The Claims Tribunal took the disability of 53% in
relation to the right lower limb to be 27% in respect of the
whole body and applied a multiplier of '5' to compute the loss
of earning capacity as `2,55,167/-. A perusal of the Income
Tax Returns for the A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 shows that the
Claimant was a self employed person. His income decreased
in the year in which the accident took place. The Claimant was
dealing in the sale and repair of tyres and at times was expected
to do manual work which could have definitely been affected
by about 27%. In the circumstances, the loss of earning
capacity to the extent of 27% on a multiplier of '5' cannot be
faulted.
6. In the matter of Govind Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
2011(10) SC 683, the accident took place in the year 2004.
There was a disability of 70% in case of a young boy aged 24
years. A compensation of ` 1.5 lakhs was awarded towards
pain and suffering and `1.5 lakhs towards loss of amenities in
life. Considering the price increase during the period of five
years, a compensation of `80,000/- towards pain and suffering
and `90,000/- towards loss of amenities and on account of
disfigurement cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive.
Loss of earning for a period of three months on the basis of the
Claimant's income and `15,000/- towards conveyance and
special diet considering the duration of the treatment was just
and reasonable.
7. The compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive or
exorbitant. On the other hand, the same is just and reasonable.
8. The Appeal, therefore, has to fail; it is accordingly dismissed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 27, 2012
pst
