Delhi High Court
Devinder Singh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 1 June, 2016
$~R-128
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 01.06.2016
+ MAC.APP. 87/2008
DEVINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary and Mr.
Rajiv Kumar Trivedi, Advocates
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.R. Sikka and Mr. Amit Sikka,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant, then aged 24 years, working as a Scientist (System
Analyst) with National Informatics Centre, suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 08.12.1995 involving negligent driving
of a car bearing registration no.DL-3CE-7860 (offending vehicle),
admittedly insured against third party risk with United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. (first respondent) for the period in question. The injuries suffered
included fracture of the shaft femur left, fracture of patella left alongwith
fractured tibial condyle left alongwith wounds on both hands. He instituted
an accident claim case (petition no. 1045/2004, old no.54/1997) on
30.04.1997 impleading the said insurance company, driver and owner of the
offending vehicle as respondents.
2. On the basis of the inquiry held, by judgment dated 30.10.2007, the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (tribunal) upheld his case about injuries
having been suffered due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The
tribunal awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs.1,02,000/- which
includes Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.12,000/- towards
expenses incurred on attendant charges, Rs.20,000/- each towards special
diet and conveyance. It directed the insurance company to pay the said
amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the
petition till realization.
3. The present appeal was filed submitting grievance that the tribunal
had not granted adequate compensation. At the hearing, the claimant
presses for enhancement of the award by suitable compensation towards loss
of income during the period of treatment, loss of future income on account
of disability, medical expenses and non-pecuniary award of damages on
account of loss of amenities of life.
4. During the arguments, it is shown from the record of the tribunal that
the claimant / appellant had been examined by a board of doctors of the All
India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) which had issued a disability
certificate (Ex. PW3/2) on 08.01.1997 certifying that the claimant had
become physically handicapped to the extent of 23% permanent impairment
in relation to his left lower limb due to the above mentioned fractures and
consequent one inch of shortening of the left lower limb. The claimant had
also proved during inquiry that he had to avail of leave of six months
absence of duty on account of treatment. He proved through evidence that
he was earning ₹6,616/- p.m. as salary from the employer with National
Informatics Centre. He also proved documents relating to his treatment and
medical expenditure incurred in that context, they being Ex. PW3/5 to 11.
The tribunal declined to grant any compensation on account of loss of
income during the period of treatment on the reasoning that there had been
no actual loss since the claimant would have availed of leave from the
office. It did not consider grant of any compensation on account of future
loss of income consequent to the disability. The medical expenditure was
claimed by the appellant to have been incurred to the extent of ₹2.5 Lakh.
The tribunal, however, declined to grant any compensation under the said
head for the reason the original bills and receipts had not been submitted on
record. No award was made on account of loss of amenities of life due to
disability suffered.
5. In the opinion of this court, the approach of the tribunal was
erroneous. It may be correct that the claimant was in regular employment of
National Informatics Centre and would have the privilege of taking leave of
absence but then the leave account which he would have earned was not
meant for being spent on treatment for injuries suffered in a motor vehicular
accident. The leave account was available to him for being taken benefit
for his own purposes and at his own discretion. The leave account is of
value and any erosion for reasons not attributable to an employee resulting
in corresponding loss must be compensated.
6. Further, the permanent disability having been proved to the extent of
23% in relation to the left lower limb even though there was no immediate
loss of income on such account (since the claimant continued to be in the
same service and on account of his qualifications earned even promotions),
it cannot be ignored that the loss would eventually occur on account of
handicap post-retirement from the service, which would occur normally at
the age of 60 years. In these circumstances, loss of future income post-
retirement would need to be taken care of.
7. The expenditure receipts towards treatment as submitted on record are
indeed photocopies. But then, as pointed out by the counsel for the
claimant, while introducing the said evidence, the appellant appearing as
PW-3, had clarified that the originals were available with him which he had
brought for perusal of the tribunal. The reference to inability to produce
other documents of such nature, as appearing in the cross-examination
relates to 'further expenses' and not the expenses for which the claimant was
seeking reimbursement in the form of compensation. But, it is noted that the
documents submitted during evidence (Ex.PW3/10 and Ex. PW3/11) show
expenditure only to the tune of (₹35,626/- + ₹4,571/-) ₹40,197/-. The
learned counsel for the claimant fairly conceded that he is unable to produce
any other record showing any additional expenditure and thus, presses for
reimbursement only to the extent of ₹40,197/-.
8. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered and the reasons for
disability as certified vide Ex. PW3/2, bearing in mind the job in which the
claimant had been engaged, functional disability on account of permanent
handicap is assessed at 15% and, on that basis, loss of future income is to be
calculated on the multiplier of 9, as would apply post-retirement.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the loss of income on account of injuries is
calculated as (₹6616 x 6) ₹39,696/-. The loss of future income on account
of functional disability to the extent of 15% on the multiplier of 9 works out
to (₹6616 x 15/100 x 12 x 9) ₹ 1,07,179/-. The medical expenditure has
been calculated above to the tune of ₹40,197/-. The award on account of
loss of amenities of life due to disability is added in the sum of ₹20,000/-.
10. Thus, the additional compensation is calculated as ₹39,696/- +
₹1,07,179/- + ₹40,197/-+₹20,000) ₹2,07,072/-. Adding this amount to the
compensation awarded by the tribunal, the total compensation in the case is
computed as (₹2,07,072/- + ₹1,02,000) ₹3,09,072/-, rounded off to
₹3,10,000/-.
11. Needless to add, the amount of ₹25,000/- which was paid as interim
compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, shall be
adjusted. The amount shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
12. The insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by requisite
deposit with the tribunal within 30 days, making it available to be released
to the claimant.
13. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
June 01, 2016
yg
