Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Gurmeet Singh & Ors on 1 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1st March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 708/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.L.K.Tyagi, Advocate
versus
GURMEET SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.S.Juneja, Advocate for
R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant seeks reduction of compensation of ` 35,23,328/-
awarded to the Respondent No.1 who suffered serious injuries in an
accident which occurred on 07.10.2004. The Claims Tribunal by a
judgment dated 06.05.2011 granted the compensation under various
heads which can be tabulated as under:-
Compensation under different Awarded by the Claims
heads Tribunal
Treatment Expenses `2,07,338/-
Pain & Sufferings `75,000/-
Special Diet `25,000/-
Conveyance `9,190/-
Attendant's Charges `2,61,000/-
Future attendant's Charges `8,64,000/-
Loss of Income `6,47,800/-
Disability `14,39,000/-
Total `.35,28,328/-
2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there is
duplication in the award as both the attendant charges for 79 months
amounting to `2,61,000/- and the future attendant charges amounting
to `8,64,000/- have been awarded. It is submitted that the Respondent
No.1 was awarded a sum of `6,47,800/- towards loss of income for 79
months at the same time he was awarded a compensation of
`14,39,000/- towards loss of earning capacity on account of disability.
3. The Respondent No.1 suffered head injuries in the accident. He
suffered Hemiplegia of the left side of the body resulting into 75%
permanent disability. It is not in dispute that the Appellant was unable
to move for 79 months and that is why loss of income of `6,47,800/-
was awarded by the Tribunal. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,
2011 (1) SCC 343 it was held by the Supreme Court that apart from
the extent of permanent disability the Court has to consider the
functional disability affecting the loss of earning capacity. In this case
the Appellant has suffered permanent disability which has
incapacitated him to carry out his profession throughout his life.
Though the permanent disability has been assessed to be only 75% but
since the First Respondent is unable to move and there are hardly any
chance that he can move or in any case attend to his work the
permanent disability should have been considered as affecting 100%
loss of his earning capacity.
4. The respondent No.1 was employed as a Purchase Manager
with Nanak Food Industries. He worked there as such from
02.07.1996 to 03.04.2004. His last drawn salary from Nanak Food
Industries was `7,000/- per month. Thereafter he joined Queen
Distilleries and Bottles Pvt. Ltd. at a salary of `8,200/-. On the date of
the accident he was working in Queen Distilleries and Bottles Pvt.
Ltd. company. It is evident that the Respondent No.1 had good future
prospects. He was in stable employment and shifted to Queen
Distilleries and Bottles Pvt. Ltd. for better prospects. Although, the
Claims Tribunal erred in granting him compensation on account of
loss of income and on account of loss of earning capacity separately
but when he had suffered permanent disability which incapacitated
him to carry out any work he ought to have been awarded
compensation on the basis of his actual income plus future prospects
on the date of the accident. Similarly, the attendant charges ought to
have been granted on the basis of multiplier since the date of the
accident. After deducting a sum of ` 8400/- towards income tax,
adding 50% towards future prospects and adopting a multiplier of 15
suitable to the age of Respondent No.1 the compensation on account
of loss of earning capacity would come to ` 20,25,000/- Rs.(8200x12-
8400(income tax)+50%x15). The compensation on account of
attendant charges on applying similar multiplier of 15 on the wages of
a skilled worker on the date of accident i.e. ` 3318 would come to `
5,97,240/- (` 3318x12x15).
5. Although the Appellant proved bills Ex.PW-5/A of `2,50,000/-
for having taken Physiotherapy but the same were declined by the
Claims Tribunal on the ground that PW-6 Dr.Sushil Singh, Senior
Resident, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation was
silent about this. The bills having been proved the same ought to have
been allowed. Moreover, the Court could have taken a judicial notice
of the fact that a person who has suffered Hemiplegia needs constant
physiotherapy to move his body parts. I would, therefore, award a
further sum of `50,000/- towards future treatment and physiotherapy.
6. In Raj Kumar (supra) it was held that when a compensation of
more than 50% towards loss of earning capacity on account of
permanent disability is awarded, a notional sum should be awarded
towards loss of amenities in life. The Claims Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation under this head. I would award a
compensation of ` 20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. The
compensation awarded is tabulated as under:-
Compensation under Awarded by the Claims Awarded by this Court
different heads Tribunal
Treatment Expenses ` 2,07,338/- ` 2,07,338/-
Pain & Sufferings ` 75,000/- ` 75,000/-
Special Diet ` 25,000/- ` 25,000/-
Conveyance ` 9,190/- ` 9,190/-
Attendant's Charges ` 2,61,000/- Nil
Future attendant's Charges ` 8,64,000/- ` 5,97,240/-
Loss of Income ` 6,47,800/- Nil
Disability ` 14,39,000/- Nil
Loss of Earning Capacity Nil ` 20,25,000/-
Loss of Amenities Nil `20,000/-
Physiotherapy as per Bill Nil `2,50,000/-
Future treatment and Nil 50,000/-
Physiotherapy
Total Rs.35,28,328/- ` 32,58,768/- ,
7. The excess compensation of `2,69,560/- along with
proportionate, interest and the interest accrued during the pendency of
the Appeal shall be refunded to the Appellant/Insurance Company.
Statutory amount shall also be refunded.
8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 01, 2012
mr
