Delhi High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Munni Devi& Ors on 16 September, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16th September, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 884/2015 & CMs 27432/2015, 33298/2016
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.
versus
MUNNI DEVI& ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Adv. for R-1 to
R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.15,23,595/- has been awarded to claimants/
respondents no.1 to 5.
2. The accident dated 21st November, 2010 resulted in grievous injuries
to Jagdish Chandra. He suffered multiple spinal injuries and a fracture of
C6/C7 vertebrae which rendered him quadriplegic. He was admitted to Dr.
RML Hospital on 21st November 2010 and was discharged on 14th
December 2010. During this period, he underwent a surgery for bone
grafting insertion with Titanium Fixation for his fracture of spine. After the
surgery, it was found that there was no neurological improvement and he
also developed multiple bedsores over his back. Thereafter, he was admitted
to Himalayan Hospital, Dehradun. The discharge summary of this hospital
shows that he was admitted on 14th June, 2011 owing to his inability to
move his lower and upper limbs and bladder/ bowel incontinence for about 8
months. He was discharged on 23rd July, 2011. In Himalayan Hospital,
Dehradun, he was operated by PW3, Dr. Charitesh Gupta, Consultant
(Neuro Surgeon) from Synergy Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballupur,
Canal Road, Dehradun on 16th May 2011. PW3, Dr. Charitesh Gupta
deposed that despite being managed with medicines, the condition of the
patient did not improve. He was kept in ICU on a ventilator. PW3 testified
that his condition was unlikely to improve and he was unlikely to even
survive after discharge. PW3 further stated that the injuries suffered by the
injured were sufficient to cause his death over a period of time. Jagdish
Chandra died on 6th May, 2012.
3. The deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and was
working as a steward in a restaurant. The deceased was survived by his
widow, father, mother and two minor sons who filed the claim petition
before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of
Rs.8,528/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses and
applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency as
Rs.11,51,280/-.The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,37,315/- towards medical
expenditure, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Total compensation awarded is
Rs.15,23,595/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing
of petition.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that there was no proximity
between the accident and the death, as the deceased died after ten months of
discharge from the hospital. There is no merit in this contention as the
deceased suffered quadriplegia with bladder and bowel involvement and he
never recovered from the same till his death. PW3, Dr. Charitesh Gupta
deposed that the condition of the deceased was unlikely to improve and he
was unlikely to even survive after the discharge. The Claims Tribunal has
dealt with this submission in paras 16 to 21 of the award. This Court agrees
with the findings of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased died due to the
injuries suffered in the accident.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant next urged that the deceased was
earning Rs.5,500/- per month whereas the Claims Tribunal has taken
minimum wages of Rs.8,528/- per month. The Claims Tribunal did not
award any future prospects to the deceased. This Court is of the view that
since the occupation of the deceased had been proved as a steward in a
restaurant, the Claims Tribunal ought to have added future prospects to the
income of the deceased. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.8,528/-
after taking into consideration the future prospects.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant next urged that the interest of 12%
is on a higher side. In Puttamma vs. K.L. Naryana Reddy, (2013) 5 SCC 45,
the Supreme Court held that the Claims Tribunal has the discretion to decide
the rate of interest. In the facts and circumstances of this case, 12% rate of
interest is upheld.
7. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.
8. The appellant has deposited Rs.25,01,367/- with the Claims Tribunal
on 25th April, 2016. The Claims Tribunal is directed to keep Rs.23,49,227/-
in fixed deposits in the following manner:
Sr. Duration of Resp. 1 Resp. 3 Resp. 4 Resp. 5
No. FDR (Wife) (Mother) (Minor Son) (Minor Son)
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)
1. 1 yr 80,000 40,000 Rs.5,74,613 be Rs.5,74,614 be
kept in FDR till he kept in FDR till
2. 2 yrs 80,000 40,000 attains the age of he attains the age
majority. of majority.
3. 3 yrs 80,000 40,000
On maturity, the On maturity, the
4. 4 yrs 80,000 40,000 bank shall release bank shall
5. 80,000 40,000 10% to release 10% to
5 yrs respondent no.4 respondent no.5
6. 6 yrs 80,000 40,000 and keep the and keep the
balance amount in balance amount
7. 7 yrs 80,000 40,000 5 FDRs of equal in 5 FDRs of
80,000 40,000 amount for the equal amount for
8. 8 yrs period of 1 year, 2 the period of 1
9. 9 yrs 80,000 40,000 years, 3 years, 4 year, 2 years, 3
10. 10 yrs 80,000 40,000 years and 5 years. years, 4 years
and 5 years.
TOTAL 8,00,000 4,00,000 5,74,613 5,74,614
GRAND TOTAL 23,49,227
9. The balance amount after issuing FDRs of Rs.23,49,227/- be released
to respondents no.1 and 3 by transferring the said amount, in equal shares, in
their individual savings bank accounts.
10. Monthly interest on the FDRs of respondents No.1, 4 and 5 shall be
credited in the individual savings bank account of respondent No.1 and that
of respondent No.3 in her individual savings bank account.
11. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be
automatically credited in the individual savings bank accounts of the
beneficiaries/respondents.
12. All the original FDRs shall be retained by UCO Bank, Delhi High
Court Branch. However, the photocopies of the same shall be provided to
the respondents.
13. No cheque book or debit card shall be issued to the
claimants/respondents without permission of this Court.
14. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
15. UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch shall ensure that the savings
bank accounts of respondent no.1 and 3 are individual accounts and not joint
accounts.
16. The claimants/respondents shall approach the UCO Bank,
Karkardooma Court Branch for completing the formalities for the
disbursement of the award amount in terms of this judgement.
17. The claimants/respondents are at liberty to approach this Court for
release of further amount in case of any financial exigency.
18. The appellant is seeking refund of the statutory amount. The Accounts
Officer of this Court shall verify whether the award amount deposited by the
appellant in terms of the order dated 20th November, 2015 covered the
interest up to the date of the deposit. If so, the statutory amount be refunded
back to the appellant. However, in the event of any short fall, the same be
deducted from the statutory amount and be paid to the respondents No.1 and
3 through UCO Bank.
19. List for reporting compliance on 8th November, 2016. The UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch shall send the compliance report to this
Court before the next date of hearing.
20. All pending applications are disposed of.
21. Copy of this judgement be given dasti to learned counsels for parties
under signatures of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016
dk
