Delhi High Court
The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sahil Sharma @ Sahil & Ors on 17 August, 2017
$~12 & 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 1031/2016 and CM No.45093/2016
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.P. Jain, Advocate
versus
SAHIL SHARMA @ SAHIL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Pandey and Ms.
Anuradha Pandey, Advocates
+ MAC.APP. 170/2017
SAHIL SHARMA @ SAHIL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Pandey and Ms.
Anuradha Pandey, Advocates
versus
MANMEET SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.P. Jain, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Sahil Sharma (appellant in MACA 170/2017 and first
respondent in MACA 1031/2016), then a student of the degree course
of Bachelor of Arts, aged 20 years, was riding on a scooty bearing
registration no.DL-9SY-8585 on 21.08.2012 when it came to be
involved in a collision with bus bearing registration no.DL-1PC-7222
(the bus) admittedly insured against third party risk with United India
Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant in MACA 1031/2016 and third
respondent in MACA 170/2017). The injuries rendered him totally
blind in both eyes, he having become permanently disabled, his
disability having been certified (Ex.PW4/1) to be 100%, this in
addition to neurological disability to the extent of 75% on account of
quadriparesis. The accident claim case (MACT 476457/2016, old
case no.32/2014) was instituted on his behalf on 21.02.2013 in the
wake of a detailed accident report (DAR) submitted by the police on
the basis of evidence gathered during the investigation into FIR
no.222/2012 of police station Vikas Puri under Sections 279 / 338
IPC, prosecuted through his mother (natural guardian) Anju Sharma,
who also appeared as witness (PW-7) during the inquiry.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment
dated 15.09.2016, upheld the case of claim for compensation on
account of negligent driving of the bus and awarded compensation in
the total sum of Rs.44,87,372/-, fastening the liability on the insurance
company, calling it upon to pay with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
3. The insurance company, by its appeal (MACA 1031/2016), has
raised the argument of contributory negligence on the basis of
evidence of Ashok Kumar (PW-9), a tea vendor, who was examined
as an eye witness. It is submitted that the deposition of the said
witness would show that the claimant was not wearing a helmet on his
head at the time of the collision. The evidence of PW-9, when
carefully read, shows that he only deposed that he had not seen any
helmet lying at the scene of the collision after the occurrence. From
this, it cannot be deduced that the claimant was not wearing a helmet
at the time of the accident. The witness may not have noticed the
helmet. The omission on the part of the eye witness to see the helmet
at the scene cannot lead to the inference sought to be drawn. The plea
is, thus, rejected.
4. The insurance company also submits that PW-7, the mother of
the claimant, in the course of her testimony had admitted that an
amount of Rs.2 Lakhs had been received towards the medical
treatment from the office of the father of the claimant. It is pointed
out that another witness K.B. Tiwari (PW-3), senior Executive of
Accounts Branch of Dr. B.L. Kapur Memorial Hospital, where the
treatment was arranged, during the course of his testimony had also
confirmed that an amount of Rs.2 Lakh had been paid by "TPA", the
balance having been paid by the father of the claimant in cash. The
argument of the insurance company is that the said amounts of Rs.2
Lakhs had to be deducted from the award under the head of medical
expenditure.
5. The learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand,
explained that the amount referred to by PW-3 is the same amount as
is admitted to have been reimbursed by the employer of her husband
by PW-7. The expression "TPA" has not been explained. No clarity
was sought from the witness when he was examined. In absence of
any better particulars, the submission of the counsel for the claimant
cannot be rejected. Assumably, both the witnesses were speaking
about the same amount. It is noted that this amount has not been
included in the medical expenditure, reimbursement whereof is
included in the award granted by the tribunal.
6. Thus, the plea of the insurance company cannot be accepted.
7. The appeal of the claimant (MACA 170/2017) is pressed at the
hearing only on one ground, it being the inadequate damages towards
future need for domestic / attendant charges, the amount included in
the award being Rs.1 Lakh only. Given the fact that the claimant has
been rendered permanently disabled, he would undoubtedly be
dependent on an attendant to assist him in his day-to-day chores. In
these circumstances, rather than a lumpsum amount being added, the
proper course would be to grant minimum wages of an unskilled
worker on the multiplier of 18.
8. The accident having occurred on 21.08.2012, the minimum
wages of Rs.7,020/- is treated as the benchmark. After deducting one-
third, an amount of Rs.10,10,880/- deserves to be added under the
head of arrangement for attendant, this, in lieu of the amount of Rs.1
Lakh. This means the compensation would need to be enhanced by
(Rs.10,10,880/- (-) Rs.1,00,000/-) Rs.9,10,880/-.
9. Adding the above amount to the compensation awarded by the
tribunal, the total compensation payable in the case comes to
(Rs.44,87,372/- + Rs.9,10,880/-) Rs.53,98,252/-, rounded off to
Rs.53,99,000/-. The award is enhanced accordingly. It shall carry
interest as levied by the tribunal.
10. The insurance company has already deposited the amount
awarded by the tribunal with corresponding interest with the tribunal.
The said amount shall now be released to the claimant in terms of the
award. The insurance company shall satisfy the enhanced portion of
the award by requisite deposit with the Tribunal within 30 days
whereupon the said portion shall also be released to the claimant in the
form of an interest bearing fixed deposit receipt in a nationalized bank
for a period of ten years with liberty to draw periodical interest.
11. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the insurance
company.
12. Both the appeals and the pending applications are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 17, 2017
yg
