Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Malti Devi & Ors. on 20 May, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th May, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 572/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
MALTI DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2012 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
whereby compensation of `11,42,180/- was awarded in favour of
Respondent no.1 for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident, which occurred on 19.05.2008.
2. Additionally, counsel's fee of `25,000/- was also granted in favour of
Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate. The compensation awarded in tabulated
form is extracted hereunder:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Medical Expenses 13,600/-
2. Loss of Income 10,500/-
3. Loss of Earning Capacity 3,88,080/-
4. Special Diet 10,000/-
5. Conveyance Charges 10,000/-
6. Future Medical Treatment Expenses 4,00,000/-
7. Attendant Charges 10,000/-
8. Pain and Sufferings & Trauma 1,50,000/-
9. Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of 1,50,000/-
Life
Total Rs.11,42,180/-
3. There is twin challenge to the judgment. It is urged by the learned
counsel for the Appellant that the award of counsel's fee directly to
the Advocate was not permissible. Secondly, there was 44% disability
suffered by Respondent no.1 in respect of right lower limb on account
of post traumatic equino cavovarus deformity of right foot and ankle.
Respondent no.1 was engaged in doing knitting work. The Claims
Tribunal erred in taking functional disability to the extent of 44%. It
is thus, urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the
functional disability ought to have been taken to be much less than
44%.
4. The learned counsel for Respondent no.1 concedes to the first ground.
He however, states that the compensation awarded to Respondent no.1
is just and reasonable. Rather, the functional disability of 44% taken
is on the lower side. The aspect functional disability was dealt with by
the Claims Tribunal in Para 16 and 18 of the impugned judgment
which are extracted hereunder:-
"16. Physical disability of the petitioner was opined to
be 44%. The court has to assessed the functional
disability arising out of the physical disability. In
support of this, she examined Dr. Ashok Makhija, who
stated that on examination she was suffering from post
traumatic equino cavovarus deformity or right foot and
ankle. Due to the said deformity the patient could not put
the sole of the foot in plantigrade manner and has stiff
painful restricted movement of the foot and ankle. It is
contended by counsel for the petitioner that because of
her inability to stand as per own statement, she became
permanent crippled and unable to run, squat, climb stairs
or even to walk properly due to the injuries sustained in
the accident in question. The functional disability should
be taken as 100% because she was not be in a position to
go to the people for seeking knitting work assignment.
She will not been in a position to discharge her daily
household chores and she will not be in a position to do
knitting and stitching job which she was performing and
she is not in a position to squad and in view of the special
facts and circumstances of the case in this case the
permanent disability is assessed at 100%.
18. As no deduction from income has to be taken
towards personal expenses in case of injury as per
decision of Delhi High Court in Bimla vs. Gopal MAC.
APP No.1028/2006 decided on 22-3-20120 so the total
loss of future income or earning capacity comes to
Rs.3,88,080/- as per the formula (Rs.5250/- x 12 x 14 x
44%). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss of future
income at `3,88,080/-."
5. I have the trial court record before me.
6. It is true that Respondent no.1 was engaged in doing the knitting work.
She was also carrying out the household work. The Claims Tribunal
had assessed the monthly income of Respondent no.1 to be `3500/-
per month. However, the loss of earning capacity was taken to be
`5250/- per month. Further, no separate compensation towards the
loss of gratuitous services as a housewife was granted to Respondent
no.1 by the Claims Tribunal.
7. In my view, the Claims Tribunal was very conservative in awarding
the loss of earning capacity to the extent 44% of `5250/- per month
only. It cannot be said that the compensation of `3,88,080/- on a
multiplier of 14 (the age of Respondent no.1 being 45 years) towards
loss of earning capacity was on the higher side. The overall
compensation of `11,42,180/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just
and reasonable and is thus affirmed.
8. As far as the order with regard to payment of Counsel's fee of
`25,000/- to the counsel is concerned, the same is set aside in view of
the judgment of this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Kanti Devi and Ors. MAC APP No. 645/ 2012 decided on
30.07.2012.
9. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed/held in Fixed Deposit in
terms of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
11. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
12. If the counsel's fee has already been deposited by the Appellant, the
same shall also be refunded.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
May 20, 2015
vk
