Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd. vs Jyoti & Ors. on 7 September, 2016
$~R-56 to R-58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 07, 2016
(i) + MAC. APP 496/2015 & C.M.No. 11362/2015
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate
Versus
JYOTI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Singhal, Advocate for
respondent No.1
(ii) + MAC. APP 498/2015 & C.M.No. 11366/2015
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate
Versus
SHOBHA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Singhal, Advocate for
respondent No.1
(iii) + MAC. APP 504/2015 & C.M.No. 11443/2015
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate
Versus
RAMU & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Singhal, Advocate for
respondents No. 1 to 5
MAC.APP 496/2015 Page 1 of 6
MAC.APP 498/2015
MAC.APP 504/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. In the above captioned three appeals, challenge is to the common
impugned order of 15th April, 2015 vide which compensation of
`14,00,576/- has been granted to the legal heirs of deceased-Smt. Poonam
and to injured/respondents-Jyoti and Shobha, compensation awarded is to
the tune of `1,35,000/- and `6,70,000/- respectively.
2. Since these appeals arise out of a common impugned order,
therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these
appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
3. At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant has assailed the
impugned order on the ground that grant of compensation of `1,00,000/-
each to the claimants on account of death of Smt. Poonam in the accident
in question under the Head "loss of love and affection" is on the higher
side. This submission is controverted by learned counsel for respondents
who has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kala Devi & ors.
Vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan 2014 12 SCALE 513 to show that
compensation of `1,00,000/- has been awarded to minor children on
account of "loss of love and affection". However, to the mother of the
deceased, Supreme Court in a decision in Smt. Neeta, w/o Kallapa
MAC.APP 498/2015
MAC.APP 504/2015
Kadolkar & ors. Vs. The Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur 2015 (1) RCR
(Civil) 625 has granted compensation of `50,000/- under the Head of
"loss of love and affection", whereas impugned order grants
compensation of `1,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased under this
Head.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the
material on record, I find that so far as the compensation granted to the
minor children of deceased-Smt. Poonam is concerned, the same is not on
the higher side, but the compensation of `1,00,000/- towards "loss of love
and affection" granted to mother of the deceased ought to have been
`50,000/- and not `1,00,000/-. To this extent, the impugned order stands
modified and the compensation awarded to the legal heirs of deceased
stands reduced from `14,00,576/- to `13,50,576/-.
5. As regards grant of compensation to injured-Shobha is concerned,
impugned order grants `5,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings;
`1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings; `50,000/- for medical expenses and
`20,000/- towards conveyance/ transport. It is noted in the impugned
order that respondent/injured- Shobha had not suffered any permanent
disability. However, she had suffered united fracture on left leg. It is also
noted in the impugned order that there are no medical bills to support the
expenses incurred on the treatment. Attention of this Court is drawn to
the Medical Certificate (Ex. RW1/1) of respondent/injured- Shobha to
show that in relation to left lower limb, reassessment was recommended.
However, no reassessment was got done by respondent/injured- Shobha.
MAC.APP 498/2015
MAC.APP 504/2015
Impugned order is silent as to on what basis loss of future earnings has
been assessed. Respondent/injured- Shobha has vaguely deposed that she
had suffered a lot of mental pain and agony for a long time. On the basis
of such vague assertion, grant of compensation under the various heads,
as noted above, is not at all justified.
6. Reliance was placed upon a decision of 2nd December, 2008 of
Punjab & Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 3317/2007, Amandeep Kaur
Vs. State of Punjab & ors. to the effect that where no medical bills were
forthcoming, still compensation of `1,00,000/-with interest was granted
in a case of fracture of both the legs to a minor child of 10 years. There
may not be medical bills to support the medical expenses but nothing had
stopped respondent/injured- Shobha to show by which mode she had
travelled for her treatment and in any case, it is not the case of
respondent/injured- Shobha that there was a loss of future earnings. In
such a case, grant of `5,00,000/ towards loss of future earning is wholly
unjustified and is accordingly set aside. Similarly, grant of compensation
of `1,00,000/- on account of pain and sufferings is certainly on the higher
side and is accordingly reduced to a reasonable sum of `50,000/-.
7. While taking judicial notice of the fact that for treatment of a
fractured leg, respondent/injured- Shobha must have incurred some
expenses on medical and travelling also, it is deemed appropriate to
reduce compensation under the medical expenses to a sum of `30,000/-
and to `10,000/- towards travelling expenses. However,
respondent/injured- Shobha needs to be compensated for the loss of
MAC.APP 498/2015
MAC.APP 504/2015
earning for three months. It is not disclosed by her in her evidence as to
what amount she was earning on monthly basis. However, taking her
income on the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker, it is
deemed appropriate to grant compensation of `20,000/- to her for three
months under this Head. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned order is
modified qua respondent/injured- Shobha.
8. In a case of simple injury, respondent/injured- Jyoti has been
granted a sum of `50,000/- towards special diet taken by her. This
amount on the face of it appears to be quite exorbitant, particularly when
the injury sustained by respondent/injured- Jyoti was simple in nature. It
is deemed appropriate to reduce the compensation to `10,000/- under this
head. Under the head of 'pain and sufferings' the awarded compensation
is of `50,000/-. A bare perusal of evidence of respondent/injured- Jyoti
reveals that she has not elaborated as to what pain and suffering she had
undergone due to simple injuries sustained by her in the accident in
question. In view thereof, grant of `50,000/- towards pain and sufferings
appears to be on the higher side and so compensation granted is
accordingly reduced to `25,000/- under this head. A sum of `25,000/-
has been awarded towards medical expenses to respondent/injured- Jyoti
though there are no medical bills on record. It is reasonable to conclude
that respondent/ injured- Jyoti had spent `10,000/- towards her medical
expenses and `5,000/- towards conveyance expenses incurred by her. In
addition, `10,000/- is awarded to respondent/injured- Jyoti towards loss
of earning for the period in question.
MAC.APP 498/2015
MAC.APP 504/2015
9. Consequently, awarded compensation to respondent/injured -Jyoti
stands reduced from `1,35,000/- to `60,000/. In case of
respondent/injured-Shobha the awarded compensation stands reduced
from `6,70,000/- to `1,10,000/- and in case of deceased- Poonam, the
awarded compensation is reduced from `14,00,576/- to `13,50,576/-.
10. To the aforenoted extent, these appeals are partly allowed and are
accordingly disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 07, 2016
r
MAC.APP 498/2015
MAC.APP 504/2015
