Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Rehana & Ors on 14 November, 2014
$~A-60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:14.11.2014
+ MAC.APP. 1027/2014
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
REHANA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 18521/2014(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
MAC.APP. 1027/2014 and CM No. 18520/2014 (stay)
1. By the present appeal the appellant Insurance Company seeks to impugn
the Award dated 11.07.2014.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2009 the claimant along with
her family was going to Mussorie from Delhi in a Honda City car. When the
car reached at Bikaner Wala Chowk, Link Road, Ghaziabad, it was hit by a bus.
Respondent No.1 and other occupants of the car suffered injuries.
3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal awarded the following
compensation to respondent No.1:-
Medicines and Medical Rs.3,93,000/-
treatment
Future Treatment Rs.20,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/-
Disfiguration Rs.25,000/-
Conveyance Rs.20,000/-
Special Diet Rs.5,000/-
Attendant Charges Rs.6,000/-
Loss of income Rs.7,17,000/-
Total Rs.12,66,000/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
compensation awarded is extremely high and not commensurate with the
evidence on record. He points out that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,93,000/-
for medicines and medical treatment without there being any proper evidence
on record. He also points out that the Tribunal has assessed the functional
disability of respondent No.1 at 20% based on a disability certificate of 48% in
relation to right lower limb. He submits that respondent No.1 continues to run
her shop in the same manner and the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the
functional disability at 20%. He further submits that 30% have been added for
future prospects which is totally erroneous.
5. A perusal of the award would show that as far as the issue of medical
bills is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that in the accident respondent No.1
suffered multiple injuries on her body, fractures in her pelvis and ribs and was
bleeding from face, eye-brow/eyelid and lips. After getting initial treatment she
was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Mathura Road, New Delhi on 24.1.2009 itself
on the date of the accident. She remained admitted in the hospital till
25.02.2009. She underwent surgeries in her pelvis and steel plate was inserted
by surgeries. It is further pointed out that even after discharge from the
hospital, she was regularly taking medicines on the prescription of the doctors.
The Tribunal noted the submissions of respondent No.1that she had spent
Rs.5,12,991/- on her hospitalisation. The Tribunal looking at the injuries
suffered by respondent No.1 and the fact that medical bills amount to
Rs.3,93,000/- have been filed, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs.3,93,000/- as reimbursement on medicines and medical treatment and also
awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for future medical treatment. In my opinion,
there are no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
6. On the issue of functional disability, the Tribunal noted that as per the
medical certificate issued by Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, Government of
NCT of Delhi. Respondent No.1 has suffered 48% physical impairment in
relation to right lower limb. The age of respondent No.1 was 43 years on the
date of the accident. The Tribunal noted that on account of injuries sustained,
she would not be able to perform her day to day duties towards her family. The
Tribunal also noted that respondent No.1 was running a boutique and business
of hiring bridal artificial jewellery. The case of respondent No.1 is that she was
not in a position to even walk or to move her hands properly and could not
perform any manual function which is necessary in a boutique business of
hiring artificial jewellery. The Tribunal further noted that respondent No.1 was
said to be an income tax payee since 2006. Initially respondent No. 1 had filed
income tax returns filed after the date of the accident. These last returns were
not accepted by the tribunal. Later on copies of ITRs for the year 2007-08 filed
on 30.07.2007 and the for the assessment year 2008-09 filed on 22.07.2008
were filed before the Tribunal which show a gross total income of
Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,60,389/- respectively. The Tribunal noted that the
subsequent ITRs show a much higher income. Based on these income tax
returns, the Tribunal assessed the income of respondent No.1 at Rs.1,80,000/-
per annum after making deductions for income tax. Given the nature of work of
respondent No.1 and the nature of disability suffered, the Tribunal assessed the
functional disability at 20%.
7. In my opinion there are no reasons pointed out by the appellant to differ
with the view taken by the tribunal.
8. Coming to the next contention pertaining to future prospects, there are no
reasons to differ with the directions of the Tribunal granting future prospects
of 30% on the assessed income . Reference in this context may be had to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr.,
2014 ACJ 1441 which was a case where injuries were caused to a 16 years old
girl . The Supreme Court in this case had also awarded 50% increase for future
prospects. The grant of loss of income due to functional disability of
Rs.7,17,000/- is fair, just and reasonable.
9. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
10. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant.
11. The appellant may comply with the award and deposit the necessary
award amount as directed in the award with interest @ 7.5% per annum within
six weeks from today.
JAYANT NATH, J
NOVEMBER 14, 2014
rb
