Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Vikram @ Sanjay & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1958 Del

$~9
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment delivered on: 17th April, 2014

+                           MAC.APP. No.966/2011

       ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD                                   ..... Appellant
                            Represented by:    Mr.Amit Gaur, Advocate.

                            Versus

       VIKRAM @ SANJAY & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                    Represented by:            Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate
                                               for Respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

MAC.APP. No.966/2011

1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 03.08.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation as under:-

            "Medical Bills                     :     Rs. 2,788/-
            Pain & Sufferings                  :     Rs.50,000/-
            Special Diet                       :     Rs.15,000/-
            Conveyance                         :     Rs.15,000/-
            Attendant's Charges                :     Rs.25,000/-
            Loss of Income                     :     Rs.36,000/-
            Loss of Income on account
            of disability                      :     Rs.4,86,000/-
            Loss of Amenities/enjoyment of life:     Rs.75,000/-
                                        Total :      Rs. 7,04,788/-"

Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount was also awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. Mr. Amit Gaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the appellant company had taken the ground before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident as the cheque issued for premium was dishonoured on its presentation.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on a higher side.

4. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/Insurance Company failed to examine any witness to prove that the cheque for the premium got dishonoured and moreover the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 05.08.2013. Thus, the appellant company failed to examine any witness before the Ld. Tribunal and before this court as well on this issue.

5. As far as the issue of quantum being on higher side is concerned, the respondent No.1 was met with an accident on 10.08.2005 and suffered grievous injuries in both his hands and received abrasions all over his body. He was immediately rushed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. He was diagnosed to have suffered fractures in both hands and other injuries all over his body. He spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment and had been under treatment till the time of filing of the claim petition. It is further claimed that the injured had spent an amount of

Rs. 25,000/- approximately on conveyance in visiting the hospitals repeatedly and an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards special diet. Due to the accident, he had lost the income completely as he claimed to be employed with M/s. Sai Automobiles, Old Petrol Pump, Khanpur, New Delhi, for washing the cars on the salary of Rs.3,000/- per month.

6. The respondent No.1/injured was aged about 15 years when this accident had taken place which made him completely disabled and permanently handicapped. Due to the injuries, he suffered 50% disability in relation to both the upper limbs. Since he was doing the servicing of cars, therefore, the learned Tribunal has assessed functional disability as 75%.

7. Dr.D.K.Sharma, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, has proved the disability received by the injured/respondent No.1 and deposed that the injured was a young boy and had been left completely incapacitated to enjoy his life for want of his being unable to utilize his limbs. He is expected to suffer loss of dignity and well-being seeing the other children equivalent to his age for the reason that he would not be able to perform the activities, which the children of his age are expected to perform and indulged in.

8. Keeping in view the facts noted above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.

9. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the balance compensation with proportionate interest in favour of the respondent No.1/injured on taking necessary steps by him.

CM.No. 20036/2011 (for stay)

With the dismissal of the appeal itself, the instant application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.

SURESH KAIT, J.

APRIL 17, 2014 Sb/jg