Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Allahdiya & Ors. on 26 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 256/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.L.K.Tyagi, Advocate.
Versus
ALLAHDIYA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. S.S. Sisodia,
Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
07.01.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation for an
amount of Rs.8,30,900/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Mr.L.K.Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/Insurance Company submits that on the date of the accident,
the respondent No.1/injured was 28 years of age. He was not in a
permanent job, therefore, keeping in mind the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, the learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly salary as Rs.3,633/-
applicable to an unskilled person. But the learned Tribunal has erred in
adding 50% in his actual income towards future prospects.
3. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the
case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC121, which
has been further affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs.
Madan Mohan & Anr. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 on
02.04.2013.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.1/injured
has suffered 70% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb.
Therefore, in view of the dictum of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and
Anr. (2011)1 SCC 343, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the
permanent disability as 35% qua whole body, whereas the learned
Tribunal has wrongly considered the same as 50% in relation to his
whole body.
5. So far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, this Court has
dealt with the same in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors., decided on 30.09.2013 following the
dictum of the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and
Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563. Therefore, I do
not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
on this issue.
6. As regards the assessment of 50% permanent disability qua the
whole body is concerned, admittedly, on the date of the accident, the
respondent No.1/injured was 28 years of age. He was a TSR driver. At
the time of the accident, he was standing behind his TSR bearing
No.DL1RF-5262, which was stationary at the beginning of the Flyover
of Shahdara. However, he could not produce the driving licence because
the same was lost at the time of the accident. But due to the disability,
the respondent No.1/injured would not be able to drive the TSR.
7. Therefore, keeping in view the avocation of the respondent
No.1/injured and the permanent disability suffered by him, the learned
Tribunal has assessed the same as 50% in relation to his whole body.
8. In view of the above noted facts, I am not inclined to interfere in
the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the same is
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 in favour of the respondent No.1/injured in terms
of the award dated 07.01.2012 on taking necessary steps by him.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 26, 2014
sb
