Delhi High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd vs Sh Sunil & Ors on 28 April, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 487/2013
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arbaaz Hussain, Adv.
versus
SH SUNIL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The first respondent (the claimant) suffered injuries in the form of
fracture of clavicle bone and of first to the eleven ribs in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 04.04.2012 involving negligent driving of a motor
vehicle described as bearing registration no.DL-10CE-1116 (the offending
vehicle) admittedly insured against third party risk with the
appellant/insurance company (the insurer). He instituted an accident claim
case (suit no.235/2014) on 04.05.2012 seeking compensation impleading,
amongst others, the insurer. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment
dated 18.03.2013, accepted the case of the claimants that he had suffered
disability to the extent of 5% in relation to whole body on account of the
fracture of clavicle rib fracture on the right side of the chest, this finding
having been returned on the basis of disability certificate dated 20.02.2013
(page 127 of the tribunal's record) issued by board of doctors of Hindu Rao
hospital.
2. The tribunal accepted the case of the claimant that he was working as
an employee of M/s Mayank Dental Lab at a salary of `12,000/- per month
and found that he had remained under treatment for three months. Thus,
loss of income was compensated in the sum of `36,000/-. On account of
loss of future income due to 5% disability a lump sum of `1,00,000/- was
granted. The tribunal further added `9,000/- towards special diet and
conveyance and `2,50,000/- under non-pecuniary heads of damages, the
total compensation awarded being `3,59,000/-.
3. The insurer has come up in appeal questioning the computation of
compensation.
4. There is merit in the contention that mere submission of photocopy of
what purports to be a salary certificate could not have been accepted as good
proof of gainful employment or income resulting therefrom. In absence of
better proof, the tribunal should have gone by the minimum wages prevalent
at the relevant point of time to assess the loss of income. Since the
minimum wages at the relevant time were in the sum of `6656/- per month,
loss of income is calculated as (6656x3) `19968/-, rounded off to `20,000/-.
5. The loss of future income with 5% disability would work out as
(6656x5/100) `333/- per month. Since the claimant was 40 years old, on the
multiplier of 15, the total future income loss is computed as (333x12x15)
`59940/-, rounded off to `60,000/-.
6. Given the nature of injuries suffered and the extent of disability that
has ensued, the non-pecuniary damages are undoubtedly high. The same are
reduced to `1,25,000/-, put together towards pain & suffering, loss of
amenities of life and loss of expectation of life. Adding the component of
`9,000/- granted towards special diet and conveyance, the total
compensation payable in the case comes to
(9000+20,000+60,000+1,25,000) `2,14,000/-.
7. The award is reduced accordingly. Needless to add, it shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
8. By order dated 24.05.2013, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded compensation with up-to-date interest with the
Registrar General and out of such deposit 50% was allowed to be released,
the balance kept in fixed deposit receipt with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court
branch for a period of six months to be renewed periodically. The Registrar
General shall calculate the amount payable to the claimants in terms of
the award modified as above and release the same to them refunding the
excess in deposit with statutory deposit, if any, to the insurance company.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 28, 2016/ssc
