Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co ... vs Balbir Rai & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1991 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Decided on: 22nd March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 179/2011

        IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                                         ..... Appellant
                      Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate

                      versus

        BALBIR RAI & ORS                           ..... Respondents
                      Through:         Mr.S.N. Parashar, Advocate

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

                               JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

MAC.APP. 179/2011 & CM APPL. No. 4269/2011

1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 08.12.2000 whereby a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded to the first Respondent.

2. The first Respondent while travelling in his Martui Car bearing No.MH34-5975 suffered fracture of lower end Radius and Radio ulnar joint disruption left and other wounds and abrasions. He was admitted in DDU hospital and was then shifted to Apollo hospital where external fixators were applied and bone grafting was done. The first Respondent remained

admitted in Apollo hospital from 07.08.2006 to 10.08.2006 and then from 13.10.2006 to 16.10.2006. The first Respondent claimed before the Claims Tribunal that he could not attend his duty for a considerable time. In the absence of any specific evidence with regard to the leave taken by the first Respondent the Claims Tribunal allowed him compensation of 3 months' salary @ Rs.75,000/- per month, apart from a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance and special diet.

3. It is urged by the counsel for the Appellant that the first Respondent's exact salary was not proved on record. Moreover, in the absence of any evidence that the first Respondent took leave without pay the compensation could not have been awarded.

4. The first Respondent's income tax returns for the relevant year showing his salary as Rs.14,13,044/- on which he paid tax of Rs.3,63,852/- was placed on record. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal's conclusion that his net salary could be assumed to be Rs.75,000/- cannot be faulted with. Considering the nature of serious injuries suffered by him and the surgeries underwent it is expected that he could not have attended to his work for a period of about 3 months, the compensation of Rs.3 lacs as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and fair.

5. The Appeal is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly

disposed of.

6. Statutory amount be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 22, 2012 neelam