Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri Neeraj Kumar Verma & Ors on 28 September, 2012
Author: J.R. Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.823 /2006
% Date of decision : 28th September, 2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Pradeep Gaur with
Mr. Amit Gaur, Advs.
versus
SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR VERMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for
Respondent No.1.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims
Tribunal whereby the compensation of `1,76,500/- has been
awarded to the claimant/respondent No.1. The appellant seeks
reduction of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 29th November, 2004 resulted in grievous
injuries to claimant/respondent No.1 who suffered fracture in
pelvis and damage to spleen due to which, he was admitted in Dr.
Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini till 11th December, 2004.
The claimant thereafter continued his treatment at Maharajah
Aggarsain Hospital for about three months. He remained
bedridden for about four months. He underwent surgery in which
his spleen was removed.
3. The Claims Tribunal awarded `50,000/- towards pain and
suffering, `5,000/- towards special diet, `5,000/- towards
conveyance, `17,500/- towards the medical expenses, `9,000/-
towards loss of income, `65,000/- towards loss of future income
due to disability and `25,000/- towards loss of amenities and
general damages. The total compensation awarded to the
claimant/respondent no.1 by the Claims Tribunal is `1,76,500/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards loss of future income due
to permanent disability of 10% is not warranted. It is submitted
that there is no disability due to removal of the spleen.
5. The law with respect to the assessment of permanent
disability has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar
v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. The principles of assessment
of permanent disability have also been discussed in detail in the
judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Madan Lal
Papneja v. State of Haryana, MANU/PH/3853/2000. The loss of
spleen is not described in the list of permanent disabilities under
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Guidelines of the
Government of India published on 13th January, 2001 for
evaluating permanent disabilities under the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 defines five categories of disablement,
namely, visual impairment, locomotor/orthopedic disability, speech
and hearing disability, mental retardation and multiple disabilities.
The said guidelines do not define disability arising out of loss of
spleen. The loss of spleen has also not been described in Schedule
I to Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. However, it cannot be
said that the loss of spleen will not result in any disability. The
Claims Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ravi Chandran v.
Managing Director, Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., II
(2004) ACC 10 (DB) in which it has held that the loss of spleen
results in permanent disability. This Court is of the view that the
10% permanent disability taken by the Claims Tribunal in the
present case and the compensation of `65,000/- under this head is
fair, reasonable and does not warrant any interference.
6. There is no merit in the appeal and is hereby dismissed. The
appellant has deposited a sum of `1,00,000/- with the Claims
Tribunal in terms of order dated 6th October, 2006. The remaining
award amount along with up to date interest be deposited by the
appellant with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of a
cheque drawn in the name of UCO Bank A/c Neeraj Kumar Verma
within a period of 30 days. Upon being deposited the aforesaid
amount, the UCO Bank is directed to release 50% of the said
amount to the claimant/respondent No.1 by transferring the said
amount to his saving bank account. The remaining amount be kept
in a fixed deposit for a period of one year.
7. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant along with
this appeal be refunded back to the appellant.
J.R. MIDHA, J
SEPTEMBER 28, 2012
dk
