Delhi High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rampal @ Rajpal & Ors on 8 December, 2014
$~A-40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08.12.2014
+ MAC.APP. 1107/2014
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Kamal Deep, Advocate.
versus
RAMPAL @ RAJPAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 20114/2014 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No. 20115/2014 (delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 16 days' in filing
the appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
MAC.APP. 1107/2014 and CM No. 20113/2014 (stay)
1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the Award dated
26.08.2014.
2. The brief facts are that on 28.11.2012 respondent No.1 Rampal was
going towards Meethapur Chowk in a TSR. Due to high speed, the TSR turned
turtle near Meethapur Chowk. Due to the accident, respondent No. 1 suffered
injuries.
3. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation award is of Rs. 3,90,724/- as
follows:-
1. Compensation for medical expenses Rs.23,128/-
2. Compensation for pain & suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Compensation for special diet, Rs.45,000/-
conveyance and attendant charges
4. Compensation for loss of income during Rs.50,000/-
treatment
5. Compensation for loss of future income Rs.47,596/-
6. Compensation for loss of amenities and Rs.1,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
7. Compensation for disfigurement Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.3,90,724/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to impugn the award
on two counts. He firstly submits that respondent No.1 was a cleaner working
on the TSR and he is covered by the Workmen Compensation Act. He submits
that though under Section 167 of the M.V.Act a claimant has the option either
to seek compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act or under this
code, the compensation would be as payable under the Workmen
Compensation Act only. Hence, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded
compensation on the higher side. Further it is submitted that premium had been
charged to the insured based on compensation payable under the Workmen
Compensation Act. He secondly submits that even if compensation is payable
under this code, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation of Rs.1 lac
for pain and suffering and Rs.1 lac for loss of amenities of life which is very
much on the higher side inasmuch as the injuries suffered are nominal in the
sense that he has suffered only 6% permanent disability in relation to right
lower limb.
5. As far as first submission is concerned regarding the compensation as per
the Workmen Compensation Act, Section 167 of the M.V.Act, reads as
follows:-
"167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain
cases.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily
injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under
this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923,
the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the
provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of
those Acts but not under both."
6. A plain reading of this Section shows that the claimant has the option of
either to go for proceedings under the Workmen Compensation Act or under
the Motor Vehicles Act. This Section nowhere states that irrespective of the
forum chosen by the claimant, the claim is to be worked out as per the
Workmen Compensation Act. The argument is totally contrary to Section 167.
The said Section has to be interpreted in a liberal fashion keeping into account
that it is a beneficial piece of legislation. Reference may be had to the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbahi Soni & Ors. vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 where in para 36, 53 and
56 it is held as follows:-
" 36. The relevant provisions of the Act are beneficial in nature.
The Act indisputably is in the nature of a social welfare legislation.
53. Although the Act is a beneficial one and, thus, deserves liberal
construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but
it is trite that where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its
own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the court would
not travel beyond the same and extend the scope of the statute on
the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not
covered thereby. (See Regional Director, Employees' State
Insurance Corporation, Trichur v. Ramanuja Match Industries,
MANU/SC/0203/1984 : (1985)ILLJ69SC ).
56. It is now well-settled that for the purpose of interpretation of
statute, same is to be read in its entirety. The purport and object of
the Act must be given its full effect...."
7. Hence, there is no merit in the first contention of the appellant.
8. Secondly, coming to the compensation awarded under the head of pain
and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a perusal of the
Award shows that respondent No.1 has suffered 6% permanent disability in
relation to right lower limb. The accident took place on 28.11.2012 when he
was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He was thereafter transferred to
Safdarjung Hospital where he remained under hospitalisation from 29.11.2012
to 18.12.2012. On 14.12.2012 ORIF operation with interlocking nail was
conducted.
9. In the light of the tenure spent in the hospital and the nature of injuries
suffered by respondent No. 1, no fault can be found with the grant of
compensation of Rs.1 lac for pain and suffering and Rs.1 lac for loss of
amenities and enjoyment of life
10. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant. The present appeal is dismissed.
11. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded.
12. The appellant may comply with the Award within four weeks from
today.
JAYANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 08, 2014
rb
