Delhi High Court
M.R. Krishna Murthi vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 17 May, 2016
$~R-73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17.05.2016
+ MAC.APP.550/2007
M.R. KRISHNA MURTHI ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant, then aged about 18 years, still a student, was travelling
in a jeep bearing registration no.USM 1731 (jeep) on 26.05.1988 when it
met with an accident involving negligent driving of an ambassador car
bearing registration no.DPQ 3108 (offending vehicle) in the area of
Muzaffar Nagar on Roorkee Highway within the jurisdiction of Police
Station Purkaji District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. As a result of the accident,
the appellant (claimant) suffered multiple injuries including fracture of left
femur, fracture of both bones of the left leg viz. Tibia and Fibula, bruises
and blunt injuries on the left wrist and both feet, paralysis of left perennial
nerve and consequent foot drop, and numbness in the right leg. An accident
claim case (suit no.42/2006) was instituted, initially before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (tribunal) at Muzaffar Nagar, UP on 25.11.1988
which was transferred to the tribunal at Delhi under the directions of the
Supreme Court. In the claim case seeking compensation under Sections 166
and 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 (M.V. Act), the driver, owner and insurer of
the offending vehicle were impleaded as parties, in addition to the driver,
owner and insurer of the jeep.
2. The tribunal, after inquiry, by judgment dated 23.05.2007, returned a
finding that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the
offending vehicle and, thus, held the driver, owner and insurer of the said
vehicle to be liable to pay compensation, they now being fourth, fifth and
sixth respondents in appeal. It, inter alia, found that the claimant had
suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% and, on that basis,
calculated the loss of future income having assumed the future earnings to
be in the sum of ₹5,000/- and thus, calculated the same by adopting the
multiplier of 17. The total compensation in the sum of ₹8,48,000/- was
awarded, it having been calculated thus :
Pain and sufferings ₹50,000/-
Medicines ₹2,10,000/-
Special Diet ₹15,000/-
Conveyance ₹15,000/-
Compensation on account of loss of ₹4,08,000/-
income adopting multiplier of 18
Permanent disability ₹75,000/-
Attendant ₹25,000/-
Loss of enjoyment ₹50,000/-
Total ₹8,48,000/-
3. The insurer of the offending vehicle was directed to pay the
compensation with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. for a period of 10 years,
inter alia, taking note of the fact that the claim petition had been dismissed
in default twice.
4. The appeal at hand was filed seeking enhancement of the
compensation. By order dated 07.05.2008, it was admitted and directed to be
shown in the category of regular matters. Though it was taken before the
Lok Adalat on certain dates, no amicable settlement could be arrived at. On
some of the dates, the appeal was taken up, the appellant was duly
represented by counsel. In the proceedings recorded on 30.11.2012, the
appellant even appeared in person. But, no one has been appearing on his
behalf over the last several consecutive dates when the appeal is taken up for
hearing and disposal. Given the old pendency of the appeal, there is no
good reason why it should be dismissed in default or deferred yet again.
5. Arguments of the counsel for the insurance company have been heard
at length and record perused.
6. One of the contentions in appeal is that the tribunal failed to take into
account the disability certificate issued by District Medical Officer,
Muzaffar Nagar which indicates that the claimant has suffered permanent
disability to the extent of 40%. This submission is not correct in view of the
fact that the tribunal calculated the loss of future income on the basis of
inference that the claimant has suffered functional disability to the extent of
40% correspondingly affecting his earning capacity.
7. In appeal, it is further contended that the claimant has proved by
irrefutable evidence his income on the basis of certified copies of the income
tax returns. While the submission that the claimant had placed on record the
extent of his income in the later years, by submitting copies of income tax
returns for the periods 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, it cannot be
ignored that the income thus earned was based on capacity and
qualifications attained over the years after the accident had occurred in
1988. The assessment of the compensation to be paid has to be made with
reference to the date of the accident when the claimant was a boy of 18 years
only. The tribunal has clearly taken an appropriate view on this score.
8. In appeal, it is also submitted that the appellant would require services
of a driver till he attains the age of 70 years which is the normal expected
life span. No evidence was led in support of this claim. But given the
nature of disability and physical disfigurement suffered, however, there is a
case made out for additional lumpsum damages in the sum of ₹50,000/- to
be added on such account.
9. Thus, the compensation in the case is enhanced by ₹50,000/-. It shall
carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
10. Given the neglect shown in the diligent prosecution of the claim
before the tribunal, as indeed, on the appeal at hand, there is no case made
out for any enhanced rate of interest to be levied.
11. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced portion of the
compensation with proportionate interest with the tribunal within 30 days of
this judgment making it available to be released to the claimant.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
May 17, 2016
yg
