Delhi High Court
Ansamma Sabu & Ancy Sabu vs Ravi Kumar Rana And Ors on 23 May, 2016
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 326/2014
ANSAMMA SABU & ANCY SABU ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
RAVI KUMAR RANA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P. Acharya, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant, trained as a nurse, then aged 43 years, suffered injuries
in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 30.03.2011 on account of
negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. DL 1PC 7394 (offending
vehicle) of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), admittedly insured against
third party risk for the period with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer).
She filed an accident claim case (Suit No. 585/2011) on 03.06.2011 seeking
compensation impleading DTC, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle
as respondents.
2. The motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) held inquiry and, by
judgment dated 16.11.2013, upheld the case that she had suffered injuries
and permanent disability on account of negligent driving of the offending
vehicle and compensation in the sum of ₹ 15,48,561/- was awarded with
interest @ 9% per annum in her favour with direction to the insurer to pay.
The compensation was calculated as under:-
S.No. Description Amount
1 Compensation for medical expenses Rs. 52,145/-
2 Compensation forpain &suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
3 Compensation for special diet and
Conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
4 Compensation for loss of income
During Treatment Rs. 75,000/-
5. Compensation for loss of future
income Rs. 8,71,416 /-
6 Compensation for loss of amenities
And enjoyment of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
7. Compensation for disfigurement Rs. 50,000/-
8. Compensation for attendant charges Rs. 2,50,000/-
Total Rs. 15,48,561/-
3. The claimant has come up in appeal submitting that the compensation
for loss of future income was not properly calculated and that the awards
under the heads of pain & suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life
are inadequate.
4. It is noted that the tribunal considered the evidence about disability
thus:-
13. Petitioner in her affidavit of evidence Ex. PWl/A stated
that after accident she was removed to AIMS trauma center. As
per discharge summary mark A (collectively from 1 to 7),
petitioner is found to have suffered fracture injuries in both the
legs and operated for debridement and external fixature
applied on 18.04.2011 and thereafter STSG.B/L lower limbs on
30.04.2011. As per the OPD cards, petitioner remained under
treatment till 09.07.2011 with AIIMS trauma center. During,
proceedings petitioner was examined for ascertainment of
disability at Madan Molian Malviya hospital on the direction of
this Tribunal. Medical board of the hospital after examining the
petitioner issued disability certificate Ex. PW2/A opining that
petitioner received 88% disability with respect to right upper
limb as well as both lower limbs and the said deformity is found
permanent in nature and not likely to be improved. PW2 Dr.
Jogender Kumar who examined tlie petitioner also stated that
due to this disability petitioner will have difficulty in her day to
day activities including sitting, squatting, running and walking
and there will be difficulty in performing jobs which require
movement of lower limbs. Thus, It is clear that petitioner
suffered grievous fracture injuries in both legs resulting in
permanent disability to the extent of 88%.
Xxxxxx
18. Loss of future income: As per disability certificate,
petitioner suffered 88% disability in relation to "right upper
imb and both lower limbs" which are not likely to improve and
non progressive. PW2 Dr. Jogender Kumar in his testimony
categorically stated that it is difficult for petitioner to perform
job which require movement/ ambulation of both lower limbs.
Petitioner is found to be working as nurse and as a nurse she
requires the movement of legs to perform her duty. Definitely
the present nature of disability, substantially hampered her
career as a nurse, therefore the percentage of loss of earning
capacity is assessed @70%. ........"
5. Having regard to the nature of job for which the claimant has been
trained, this Court agrees with her submission that the assessment of
disability to the extent of 70% only was incorrect. Since three of her upper
limbs have been impaired, they including the right upper limb as would be
necessary in almost all nursing duties which she is expected to perform, the
functional disability should have been assessed to the extent of 88% in
accordance with the medical opinion.
6. Thus, since the income of the claimant was notionally assessed at
minimum wages of skilled worker (with her consent) at ₹ 7,410/-, the loss of
future income on account of permanent disability to the extent of 88%
would calculate as (7410 x 88÷100 x 12 x 14) ₹ 10,95,494/-.
7. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the extent of disability
suffered, the compensation on account of pain & suffering on one hand and
for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life are increased to ₹ 1,50,000/-
each.
8. Thus, the total compensation in the case is calculated as (52,145 +
1,50,000 + 50,000 + 75,000 + 10,95,494 + 1,50,000 + 50,000 + 2,50, 000) ₹
18,72,639/-, rounded off to ₹ 18,73,000.
9. The award is modified as above. Needless to add, it shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
10. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced portion of the
compensation with interest with the tribunal within 30 days. It is directed
that the entire enhanced portion of the compensation with interest shall be
released to the claimant in the form of fixed deposit receipt in a nationalized
bank of his choice for a period of 5 years with right to draw monthly
interest.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 23, 2016/nk
