Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Nikunj Wadhawan & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 492/2012
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms. Shruti Shukla, Adv.
Versus
NIKUNJ WADHAWAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. H.S. Arora, Adv. for
R1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
12.01.2012 whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of
Rs.10,61,541/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the amount.
2. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that
claimant / injured failed to prove that he was on a permanent job, therefore,
the Ld. Tribunal considered his salary as Rs.3,953/- per month on the basis
of Minimum Wages Act, prevailing on the date of accident. However, ld.
Tribunal has erroneously added 50% towards future prospects, contrary to
the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors.
2009 (6) SCC 121, which has been further affirmed by the Full Bench in the
case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC
65.
3. The ld. Counsel further submits that the ld. Tribunal has erred in
granting higher amount towards the non-pecuniary benefits, i.e.,
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life and
loss of expectation of life in addition to Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards loss
of marriage prospects. The discharge summary Ex.PW2/1 clearly shows
that the respondent No.1 had a past history of Epilepsy. Therefore, 50%
permanent disability was not caused due to the injuries received in the
accident. However, the ld. Tribunal has granted compensation towards non-
pecuniary heads on a higher side.
4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
no. 1 / claimant, on the issue of future prospects, submits that respondent no.
1 / claimant was 25 years of age at the time of accident. He was working
with private establishment, however, he could not prove his monthly
income. Therefore, ld. Tribunal has assessed his salary as Rs.3,953/- per
month as per the minimum wages applicable on the date of accident. He
further submitted that keeping in view the age of claimant/injured, the Ld.
Tribunal has rightly added 50% towards future prospects.
5. To strengthen his arguments, ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of
Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563decided by
the Full Bench of the Apex Court.
6. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the claimant was 25 years of age
at the time of accident. He received 50% permanent disability. He suffered
lot of pain and mental agony. He lost lot of amenities in life including loss
of expectation of life. He also lost marriage prospects. Accordingly, the Ld.
Tribunal considered all the relevant facts and granted compensation.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties.
8. So far as the future prospects are concerned, this court has followed
the dictum of Rajesh (Supra) in the case MACA No.846/2011 titled as
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors.,
decided on 30.09.2013. Age of the claimant was 25 years on the date of
accident. Therefore, the Ld. Tribunal has rightly added 50% in his income
towards future prospects.
9. As far as the issue of compensation towards non-pecuniary damages is
concerned, Ld. Tribunal has considered the fact that the respondent no. 1/
claimant received 50% permanent disability qua the whole body, which is
proved by Ex.PW3/16. It was specifically mentioned in the discharge
summary Ex.PW2/1 that the injured had past history of Epilepsy for three
years and there was no seizure since last one year. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the disability suffered by the injured was not qua the injuries
received in the accident. Moreover, PW5, Dr. Arun Yadav, Sr. Orthopaedic
Surgeon, Bara Hindu Rao Hospital has specifically stated that 50% of the
permanent disability is due to the injuries received in the accident.
10. It is undisputed that the injured received injuries on the head, due to
which left side of his body has weakened and he became paralytic. The
claimant was 25 years of age at the time of accident. He received 50%
permanent disability. He suffered lot of pain and mental agony; and lost lot
of amenities in life including loss of expectation of life. He also lost
marriage prospects. On considering all the facts as noted above, the Ld.
Tribunal has rightly granted compensation towards non-pecuniary damages.
11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal.
12. Accordingly, instant appeal is dismissed.
13. Consequently, balance compensation amount be released in favour of
the respondent no. 1 / claimant.
14. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 28, 2014
Jg/RS
