Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Sanjay Singh & Ors on 19 May, 2016
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 651/2014 and CM No.11680/2014
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
versus
SANJAY SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The first respondent (claimant), having suffered injuries in a motor
vehicular accident on 28.06.2012, statedly on account of negligent driving of
a truck bearing registration no.HR-38N-6893 (offending vehicle) instituted
an accident claim case (no.83/14/13) on 06.12.2012, seeking compensation
under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) .
The appellant insurance company (insurer) was impleaded as a party in
addition to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. It is admitted by
the insurer that the offending vehicle was covered by third party risk
insurance policy issued for the period in question.
2. The tribunal having upheld the case of the appellant about injuries
suffered due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs.9,85,703/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
in favour of the claimant by judgment dated 28.04.2014 directing the insurer
to pay.
3. The insurer is in appeal taking exception to the inclusion in the award
of an amount of Rs.8,00,700/- towards loss of future income on the basis of
findings that the claimant had suffered functional disability to the tune of
20% and that at the time of the cause of action arising he was in private
service in receipt of Rs.19,626/- as salary. The contentions of the insurer are
that the salary was not proved, and the disability having been certified to the
extent of 13% was erroneously treated as functional disability to the extent
of 20%.
3. Having heard the counsel for the insurer and having gone through the
record both grounds are found to be unmerited. The claimant appeared in
evidence as his own witness (PW-1). During his testimony, he affirmed on
oath the fact of his employment in private service as an engineer with
emoluments of Rs.19,626/- p.m. and submitted his salary certificate in
support. Noticeably, the witness was cross-examined at length by the
insurer but the testimony about the employment and earnings was not even
remotely challenged. The claimant has proved on record the disability
certificate (Ex. PW1/7) which indicates physical impairment in the left
upper limb to the extent of 13%. The tribunal took note of the fact that he is
an engineer by profession. The impairment of the upper limb is undoubtedly
bound to affect his capability and competence to carry out the duties
expected of an engineer. In these circumstances, the view taken by the
tribunal in assessing the functional disability to the extent of 20% does not
call for any interference.
5. By order dated 23.07.2014, the insurance company had been directed
to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest with the Registrar
General whereupon the execution was stayed though an amount of Rs.6
Lakh from out of said deposit was allowed to be released. The Registrar
General shall now release the balance to the claimant in terms of the
impugned judgment.
6. The statutory deposits, if made, shall be refunded.
7. The appeal and the pending application are dismissed.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
May 19, 2016
yg
