Future Generali Inida Insurance ... vs Sonu Singh Negi & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1043 Del

$~1
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       Judgment delivered on: 25th February, 2014

+                           MAC. APP. No.953/2013

FUTURE GENERALI INIDA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
                  Represented by: Ms. Suman Bagga and
                                  Ms.Shruti Shukla,
                                  Advocates.

                            Versus

SONU SINGH NEGI & ANR.                                 ..... Respondents
                  Represented by:             Mr.S.N. Parashar,
                                              Advocate for Respondent
                                              No.1.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 18.09.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,12,961/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount.

2. It is pertinent to note that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were proceeded ex parte and the learned Tribunal has relied upon the DAR filed by the police. Since the licence of the driver of the

offending vehicle was expired, therefore, recovery rights have been granted in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has argued the present appeal on a sole ground that the injured/respondent No. 1 received 22% disability in relation to his right lower limb, accordingly, keeping in view the Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011)1SCC343, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability qua the whole body maximum as 10%. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in considering functional disability qua the whole body as 22%.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2011 at about 7.40 pm, the injured/respondent No.1 alongwith Raju was going by a motorcycle to Nangli Puna from Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. When they reached in front of Siraspur Gurudwara, Lower G.T. Road, a Mahindra Champion No. DL 1-N 9423 came from front side in rash and negligent manner and hit the said motorcycle from front side with great impact, due to which both motorcyclists fell down on the road alongwith motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the Mahindra Champion stopped his vehicle at the distance of 20-25 meters away from the place of accident. Police reached at the spot and both injured were taken to Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. Due to the grievous injuries, respondent No. 1 was shifted to Satyam Hospital, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi. A criminal case under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered against the respondent No. 2 vide FIR No.353/11 in P.S. Samai Pur Badli.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 1 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that he was continuing with his previous job, despite that, the learned Tribunal has assessed the functional disability as 22%.

6. On perusal of the record and the evidence, it shows that the respondent No. 1 received grievous injuries all over the body. He was admitted in Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, where MLC was prepared, but due to serious condition he was immediately shifted and admitted in Satyam Hospital, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, on 21.9.2011 itself. During the course of his treatment as an indoor patient, three operations were conducted by the doctors, rod was fixed on his right leg and plates were fixed on his right side hip joint and he was discharged on 4.10.2011. He had also taken treatment from Ishan Hospital Pvt. Ltd. He has proved the copies of bills and medical record as Ex. PW1/6 (collectively 89 bills). The respondent No.1 has also deposed that due to the accident he received multiple injuries and even suffered physically permanent disability upto 22% as per the certificate issued from AIIMS in relation to the right lower limb.

7. The respondent No. 1 further deposed that he was possessing a very good health at the time of accident, however, due to the said accident his physique has been deteriorated.

8. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the respondent No.1 was 24 years of age and was working as labourer and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month as claimed by him. He was a matriculate; and proved the same as Ex.PW1/7. The sudden disaster brought a great shock and sufferings

to the respondent No.1. Moreover, the family of the injured could not get his earnings during bed rest, on the contrary, had spent a huge amount on his treatment, which will be continuing.

9. Keeping in view the age of the injured/respondent No.1, i.e., 24 years, his avocation and the circumstances of the victim, I do not find any discrepancy in the finding of the learned Tribunal in considering 22% functional disability qua the whole body of the respondent No.1.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

11. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the balance compensation amount along with up-to-date interest accrued thereon shall be released in favour of the respondent No.1/injured in terms of the award dated18.09.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by him.

SURESH KAIT, J.

FEBRUARY 25, 2014 Sb/jg