Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Robin @ Rohtash & Ors. on 4 August, 2017
$~4 & 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:4th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 371/2013
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
ROBIN @ ROHTASH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Purnima Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.1
+ MAC.APP. 187/2017
ROBIN @ ROHTASH & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Purnima Sharma, Advocate for
appellant no. 1
versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,10,000/- which
is under challenge in these appeals.
2. On 24th September, 2009 at about 4:40 PM, [email protected] Rohtash was
going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR 29U 6050 to
Chhattarpur. When the motorcycle reached in front of Air Force Station, M
B Road, Sangam Vihar, Delhi, a Swift car bearing No. HR 51AE 1561 going
ahead of the motorcycle, suddenly applied brakes and stopped the car.
However, Robin could not stop his motorcycle and he hit the Swift car and
suffered grievous injuries.
3. Robin was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS by PCR and
was admitted in Neuro-Surgery Department where he underwent surgery for
his head injury. During the surgery, right FTP decomprerssive craniectomy
along with lax duroplasty was done using at temparalis facia and placement
of bone flap in abdomen was done. During the operation, seven units of
blood were transmitted to Robin. Robin was discharged on 07th October,
2009. On 02nd December, 2009, Robin was again admitted in hospital for
cranioplasty using antilogous bone graft stored in the anterior abdominal and
was discharged on 10th December, 2009. As per the Disability Certificate
dated 15th November, 2011, Robin is a case of right FTP decompressive
craniectomy and has suffered 100% permanent impairment in relation to his
head injury. Robin is unable to speak, walk without assistance and also
suffers seizures
4. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.20,10,000/- as
per the break-up given hereunder:-
Compensation for medical expenses: Rs.63,000/-
Compensation for future medical expenses: Rs.50,000/-
Compensation for conveyance and wheel chairs: Rs.1,00,000/-
Compensation for special diet: Rs.50,000/-
Compensation for attendant charges: Rs.2,00,000/-
Compensation for pain and sufferings: Rs.2,50,000/-
Compensation for loss of amenities, disfiguration and Rs.2,50,000/-
loss of expectations of life:
Compensation for loss of marriage prospects: Rs.1,00,000/-
Compensation for permanent physical disability and Rs.9,51,000/-
loss of earning capacity:
Rs.20,14,000/-
Less amount received - Rs.4,000/-
Total: Rs.20,10,000/-
5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that it is
submitted that the claimant was contributory negligent as he hit the swift car
from behind. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded to the
claimant is on higher side and the permanent functional disability is not
100%.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant urged at the time of hearing that the
compensation awarded under the head of 'loss of earning capacity' be
enhanced. It is submitted that the claimant was working on a ship/vessel as a
Oiler in UAE and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month whereas the Claims
Tribunal has taken minimum wages of Rs.4401/-. It is further submitted that
the claimant worked on ship from 2006 to 2009 and he sent Rs.36,026/- and
Rs.28,043/- to his family by sending the same in the account of his
grandfather and brother respectively, which has been proved by Ex.PW2/O
and Ex. PW2/P respectively.
7. Robin is present in person in the Court today along with his father and
his condition has been seen. This Court is of the view that the Claims
Tribunal has rightly held that the functional disability of claimant Robin as
100%. However, the loss of earning capacity taken by the Claims Tribunal
is on lower side but the enhancement is not warranted considering that the
claimant was contributory negligent. This Court is of the view that
enhancement under the head 'loss of earning capacity' would neutralize the
reduction on account of contributory negligence. In that view of the matter,
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is upheld.
8. Both the appeals are dismissed.
9. Insurance Company has deposited the entire award amount and the
said amount has been disbursed.
10. The statutory amount be refunded to the appellant in appeal bearing
MAC APP No.371 /2013.
11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
AUGUST 04, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
sm
