Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Roshan Jahan & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6933 Del

$ 14 & 15

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 4th December, 2012
+        MAC. APP. 837/2012

         RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.           ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.


                            Versus


         ROSHAN JAHAN & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents
                     Through:                   None

+        MAC. APP. 847/2012

         RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.           ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.


                            Versus


         SARTAJ & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                                    Through:    None


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                        JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. These two Appeals(MAC.APP.837/2012 and MAC.APP.847/2012) arise out of two separate judgments of even date arising out of a motor vehicle

accident which took place on 28.06.2011 wherein Respondents Farheen, a girl aged 12 years and Sartaj @ Babloo, a boy aged 21 years suffered injuries. In MAC.APP.837/2012, a lumpsum compensation of `50,000/- was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in addition to a sum of `5,000/- as counsel's fee and `2,000/- as out of pocket expenses to the counsel for the First Respondent. Similarly, in MAC.APP.847/2012, a lumpsum compensation of `50,000/- towards pain and suffering and `3,800/- towards damage to the motor cycle and a sum of `10,000/- towards counsel's fee and `2,000/- towards out of pocket expenses was awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the Respondent Sartaj.

2. A common contention raised in both the Appeals is that the Respondents suffered simple injuries and award of compensation of `50,000/- was exorbitant and unreasonable. It is stated that the award of counsel's fee and out of pocket expenses was not in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders.

3. The Respondents have preferred not to contest the Appeals despite service.

4. I have before me the Trial Court record. In the accident, both the Respondents suffered head injuries. Immediately after the accident on 28.06.2011, the Respondents were removed to Satyavadi Raja Harishchandra Hospital run by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Considering that both the Respondents had suffered head injuries, they were referred to and were admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on the next day, that is, 29.06.2011. The Respondents underwent CT Scan and were discharged from the Hospital on 01.07.2011. Respondent Farheen's injuries were rather serious as there was loosening of some teeth and

history of loss of consciousness also.

5. The Claims Tribunal instead of awarding compensation separately towards treatment, attendant charges, conveyance, special diet and pain and suffering, awarded a lumpsum compensation of `50,000/- in each of the two cases. The treatment was largely free as both the injured were treated in Government run Hospitals. There is a receipt on record for payment of `750/- towards CT Scan charges. The overall compensation of `50,000/- awarded in MAC.APP.837/2012 and `53,800/- in MAC.APP.847/2012(which included a compensation of `3,800/- towards damage to the motor cycle) cannot be said to be excessive and exorbitant and I would not like to remand the cases for computation of compensation under each head. The award of compensation in both the Appeals is, therefore, maintained.

6. As far as award of counsel's fee and out of pocket expenses are concerned, this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanti Devi & Ors.(MAC.APP.645/2012) decided on 30.07.2012 dealt in detail the extent to which the counsel's fee can be awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It was laid down that the Claims Tribunal is entitled to award counsel's fee in accordance with Rule 1 read with Rule 1A and Rule 9 of Chapter 16 Volume I of the High Court Rules and Orders. The Claimants would thus be entitled to the counsel's fee, if any, in accordance with the above stated Rules.

7. The Appeals partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

8. The award amount along with interest (less counsel's fee and out of pocket expenses) was ordered to be deposited in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, which shall be released in favour of Respondent No.1 in each of the two Appeals in terms of the orders passed by the Claims

Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal shall compute the counsel's fee, if any, payable in terms of judgment of this Court in Kanti Devi(supra) which shall be payable to the First Respondent in each of the two Appeals.

9. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

10. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 04, 2012 pst