Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Vikrant @ Vicky & Ors on 24 February, 2016
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 933/2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. A K Soni, Adv.
versus
VIKRANT @ VICKY & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Devendra Kumar, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) by judgment dated
10.05.2012 passed in MACT case No.180/10/2008, registered on the petition
under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs.3,26,000/- in favour of the first respondent
herein, calculating it as under:-
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
1). Medical expenses================Rs.12,000/-
2). Loss of income================= Rs.84,000/-
3). Special diet=================== Rs.25,000/-
4). Conveyance=================== Rs 25,000/-
5). Attendant charges =============== Rs.30,000/-
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):
6). Pain and sufferings, shock, etc.=======Rs.1,50,000/-
--------------------------
Total Rs.3,26,000/-
2. As per the directions of the Tribunal, the awarded compensation is
payable with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing petition till
realization by the insurance company, it concededly being the insurer of
RTV bearing No.DL 1V 7658 (the offending vehicle) against third party risk.
The insurance company has contended that the award of damages is unduly
high on all counts inasmuch as the injuries were not proved to be serious nor
have resulted in any permanent disability. The insurance company also
questions the direction for Rs.25,000/- to be paid as counsel fee.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant, while conceding that
the direction about counsel fee may be set aside, argued that having regard to
the severe internal abdominal injuries suffered by the claimant, it having led
to bowel perforation, the award is just and proper and there is no reason for
interference.
4. Having heard both sides, this court finds that contentions of the
insurance company with regard to quantum of compensation deserve to be
rejected by referring only to the following summary of unrebutted evidence
led by the claimant in the impugned judgment :
"Sh. Madan Mohan, Statistical Asstt., BSA Hospital, Delhi has
been examined as PW-6, who has proved the copy of MLC
bearing no.6431/07 dated 15.12.2007 of petitioner Vicky as
already Ex.PW4/1. He corroborated the story as stated by the
petitioner PW-1 regarding his admission and discharge from
the said hospital. He proved the entire original medical
treatment record as collectively Ex.PW6/A (four files). He
further stated that the treatment was given free of cost in the
hospital.
Lastly the petitioner further examined Dr. Ashutosh
Singh, Sr.Resident (Surgery), BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi as
PW-7. He stated that the petitioner was firstly admitted in the
hospital on 15.12.2007 and the operation done was emergency
exploratory laprotomy with haemicolectmoy with llio-transverse
Colostomy. The patient was again admitted on 15.01.2008 and
at that time abscess from around colostomy. The patient was
again admitted on 17.07.2008 for the closure of Colostomy, but
the operation postponed due to medical disorders (blood
disorders). He was again admitted on 15.11.2008 for final
Colostomy closure. This is a case where the colon/intestine
removed and for natural calls alternative passage created. After
that the passage for natural call closed in the last admission.
The weakness of abdomen wall will remain forever and the
operation scars will be visible as it is till it is removed by plastic
surgery. In future there may be a chance of Harnia. Nothing
incriminating has come out in the cross examination of PW-7."
5. Indeed, the injuries were quite serious and resulted in prolonged and
recurring treatment and surgical procedures. In such cases, it is not always
possible for the party affected to scrupulously maintain all receipts of
medical expenses incurred. Since the medical expenses had to be reasonably
assessed, the Tribunal made the appropriate award on that subject over and
above the medical receipts which were proved. The calculation of
compensation under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages awarded by
the Tribunal is found just and proper.
6. In view of the above, the direction about counsel's fee and expenses is
set aside. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest as levied
are maintained.
7. By order dated 27.08.2012, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit 50% of the awarded amount (excluding counsel's fee and out of
pocket expenses) with up-to-date interest, which was directed to kept in fixed
deposit receipt in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi for a
period of six months. By order dated 18.12.2013, the said deposited amount
with up-to-date accrued interest was ordered to be released to the claimant.
The insurance company was later directed by order dated 06.07.2015 to
deposit the balance 50% with up-to-date interest with the Registrar General
of this Court within a period of four weeks and for the same to be kept in
interest bearing deposit for a period of one year with UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch, New Delhi. The learned counsel for the insurance company
submits the last said order was not complied with.
8. The insurance company is now directed to deposit the entire balance
amount payable in terms of the impugned award with the Tribunal within 30
days of today whereupon it shall be released to the claimant in terms of the
order modified.
9. Statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 24, 2016/VLD
