Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance ... vs Prem Singh & Anr on 31 October, 2014
$~A-39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: October 31, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 967/2014 and CM No. 17693/2014 (stay)
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD..... Appellant
Through Mr.Mrinal Harsh Vardhan, Advocate.
versus
PREM SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the Award dated
23.07.2014.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the claim petition are that respondent
No.1 on 27.02.2013 suffered injuries in a road vehicular accident near Petrol
Pump, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. The claim petition was registered
based on a Detailed Accident Report.
3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal awarded the following
compensation.
1. Compensation for medical expenses Rs.70,520/-
2. Compensation for conveyance Rs.25,000/-
3. Compensation for special diet Rs.25,000/-
4. Compensation for attendant charges Rs.50,000/-
5. Compensation for future earnings and Rs.9,20,000/-
loss of income due to permanent
disability
6. Compensation for pain, sufferings & Rs. 4,50,000/-
loss of amenities of life:
Total Rs.15,40,520/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made two
submissions to impugn the award. He firstly submits that as per the
disability certificate placed on record, respondent No.1 has been assessed to
have 32% disability. He submits that the Tribunal on no evidence
whatsoever has assessed the functional disability also at 32% and has taken
the minimum wages of Rs. 8,814/- per month and wrongly awarded
Rs.9,20,000/- as compensation for loss of income due to permanent
disability. He secondly submits that the compensation for pain, sufferings
and loss of amenities of life has been awarded at Rs.4,50,000/- which is
grossly in excess. He submits that the matter deserves to be remanded back
with the directions to the Tribunal to reassess the functional disability in a
proper manner.
5. As far as functional disability is concerned, the appellant has handed
over a copy of the disability certificate issued by the Medical Record
Department of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The relevant portion of the
disability certificate reads as follows:
"The Medical Board held on 11.06.2014 under the
Chairmanship of Dr.Vinu Khanna, Addl. M.S. & Board
Members examined the patient Sh. Prem Singh, 34 years/Male
S/O Sh. Ratan Chand, R/O 164/6, Peer Baba Basti, Jait Pur
Village, New Delhi-110044. The Board is of opinion that the
patient is a case of "post traumatic Head Injury Sequeals
Moderate Speech dysarthria and malunited intertrochanteric
fracture femur left side with restricted left hip movement with
ppi 32% which is permanent in nature with respect of whole
body."
6. The Tribunal also noted that respondent No.1 claims to be working as
a salesman at a petrol pump and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However,
the Tribunal noted that the claimant/respondent No.1 has not filed on record
any document in respect of his avocation or his monthly earnings. The
Tribunal also noted that respondent No.1 has placed on record his 10 th class
mark sheet issued from Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education.
Keeping in view this aspect the Tribunal had assessed the income of
respondent No.1 based on minimum wages of a matriculate notified by
Delhi Government as Rs.8,814/-. The Tribunal accepted that the claimants
used to be working as salesman and the disability suffered would affect the
working capacity of respondent No. 1 to the extent of 32% and accordingly
awarded compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011)
1 SCC 343 culled out the methodology for determining functional disability
in paragraph 14, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated,
the permanent physical or functional disablement may be
assessed around 60 per cent. If the claimant was a driver or a
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be
hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry.
On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government
service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of
employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he
could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss
of earning capacity will not be 100 per cent as in the case of a
driver or carpenter, nor 60 per cent which is the actual physical
disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to
award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future
earnings', if the claimant continues in government service,
though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss
of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand...."
8. In my opinion, there is no reason to differ with the view taken by the
Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 has suffered post traumatic head injury with
moderate Speech dysarthria. He has a fracture of the femur left side with
restricted left hip movement. In the light of these factors the assessment of
functional disability at 32% is in order.
9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the said contention of the appellant.
10. As regards the compensation for pain, sufferings and loss of amenities
of life the Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr.,
2014 ACJ 1441, Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210,
Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2013) 8 SCC 389
and Kavita vs. Deepak & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 604 awarded the following
compensation for pain, sufferings and loss of amenities of life.
(i) V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi & Anr. (a) Loss of amenities and attendant
(supra)
charges: Rs.2,00,000/-
(b) Pain & Sufferings: Rs.2,00,000/-
(ii) Sanjay Verma v. Haryana (a) Pain & Sufferings: Rs.3,00,000/-
Roadways(supra)
(iv) Rekha Jain vs. National (a) Loss of amenities: Rs.10,00,000/-
Insurance Company Limited
(b) Pain & Sufferings:Rs.10,00,000/-
(supra)
Kavita vs. Deepak & Ors., (2012) 8 (a) Loss of amenities and loss of
SCC 604(supra)
expectancy of life: Rs.3,00,000/-
(b) Physical & Mental Agony:
Rs.3,00,000/-
11. In the light of the above legal position, the grant of compensation of
Rs.4,50,000/- for pain, sufferings and loss of amenities of life is in order.
12. There are no reasons to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal.
There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
JAYANT NATH, J
OCTOBER 31, 2014
rb
