Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors on 9 August, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 9th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 60/2017 and CM APPL.1895/2017 (stay)
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate
versus
RAJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh,
Advocate for R-1 along with
R-1 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident statedly due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described
as Tata Ace bearing registration No.DL-1LK-4836, admittedly insured
against third party risk for the period in question with the appellant
insurance company on 27.07.2009. He filed accident claim case (Suit
No.5435/2016) on 31.07.2009 seeking compensation impleading the
driver and owner of the said vehicle in addition to the insurer (the
appellant).
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) held inquiry
and on the basis of evidence led, by judgment dated 25.11.2016,
upheld the claim for compensation on the principle of fault liability,
awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.2,32,000/- directing the
appellant insurer to pay with interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum.
The award has been computed thus:-
Sl.No. Head Amount in (Rs.)
1. Medical expenses 16,285/-
2. Special diet 20,000/-
3. Conveyance 5,000/-
4. Loss of earning during treatment 20,000/-
5. Pain and suffering 75,000/-
6. Loss of enjoyment of life 75,000/-
7. Costs of proceedings 20,000/-
Total 2,31,285/-
Rounded up as
Rs.2,32,000/-
3. The insurer is in appeal questioning the computation stating that
the award is unduly excessive and unfounded.
4. Having heard both sides, this court finds merit in the
submissions of the insurer. The clamant was 53 years old at the time
of the accident. He claimed to be earning his livelihood from real
estate business. He pleaded that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per
month. The tribunal blindly accepted this claim as also the plea that on
account of injury he was unable to work for a period of one month.
The MLC and the other material on record indicates only superficial
hurt, the impact undoubtedly being in chest but there being not much
of damage to the insides. The claimant had pleaded that he had spent
Rs.80,000/- on medical treatment, special diet, conveyance but he was
able to muster proof of expenditure only to the tune of Rs.16,285/-.
Apparently, he has tried to exaggerate the injuries suffered and their
effect. There is no grievous hurt sustained, leave alone it being a case
of temporary disability. In these circumstances, the award made by
the tribunal under various heads, except on account of actual medical
expenditure, cannot be sustained. The impugned award to such extent
needs to be modified.
5. On being asked, the counsel for the claimant pointed out that
income tax return had been submitted (Ex.PW-1/3). The said
document indicates the total income declared for assessment year
2009-2010 was Rs.1,64,040/-. Even if one month's rest on account of
medical advice were to be assumed to be correct, the loss of earnings
due to injuries suffered would be (1,64,040/-/12) Rs.13,670/- rounded
off to Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded
towards loss of income during treatment.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above,
the award of Rs.6,000/- each under the heads of special diet and
conveyance and Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering are
added, the sum awarded as just compensation in the present case being
(16,285/- + 15,000/- + 6,000/- + 6,000/- + 30,000/-) Rs.73,285/-
rounded off to Rs.75,000/-.
7. The award is modified accordingly.
8. The amount of Rs.75,000/- will be paid as compensation to the
first respondent with interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till realization.
9. In terms of order dated 17.01.2017, the appellant has deposited
the entire awarded amount with interest with the tribunal. The tribunal
shall re-calculate the award as per modification above, releasing the
same in favour of the first respondent (the claimant), refunding the
excess to the appellant insurance company with statutory amount.
10. The appeal as well as pending application are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 09, 2017
vk
