Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co. ... vs Braham Singh & Ors. on 22 August, 2017
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 22nd August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 322/2016 and CM APPL.13973/2016 (stay)
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate
with Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv.
versus
BRAHAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tungesh, Advocate with
Mr. Ved Tripathi, Advocate,
Mr. Vidishu Kanoria, Advocate
for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 12.01.2009 due to negligent driving of motor
vehicle described as Swaraj Mazda, bearing registration No.DL-IPB-
3414, which was admittedly insured against third party risk for the
period in question with the appellant insurance company (insurer). He
instituted accident claim case (Suit No.502/2009) on 20.03.2009
which was decided by the tribunal on 22.01.2016 by the impugned
judgment accepting his claim for compensation on account of fault
liability, awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.7,03,929/- directing
the insurer to pay with interest @ nine per cent (9%) per annum.
2. It appears that in the said award an amount of Rs.1,32,929/- was
added towards medical expenditure. By subsequent order dated
17.02.2016, however, a correction was made by reducing the said
component to Rs.84,410/- only thereby reducing the total award to
Rs.6,55,410/-.
3. The insurer in appeal questions the computation of loss of
future earning calculated at Rs.3,36,000/- on the basis of functional
disability assessed at twenty five per cent (25%) submitting that there
is no basis to the same.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the insurer and for the
claimant and having gone through the record, this court finds
substance in the objection raised by the insurer.
5. The tribunal assumed that the claimant was employed in a
factory for doing the job of repair of machinery which required use of
lower limbs most of the time. The claimant has proved disability
certificate (Ex.PW-1/X) which declares him permanently disabled to
the extent of twenty four per cent (24%) in relation to the right lower
limb, such evaluation being based on stiffness of the knee. The
tribunal has taken his functional disability to be twenty five per cent
(25%) which seems to be unfounded.
6. In the evidence, the claimant did not describe the nature of
duties he was required to perform. He did not lead any other evidence
on that score. Having regard to the fact that the disability assessed by
medical opinion is twenty four per cent (24%) in relation to one of the
lower limbs arising out of stiffness of the knee in that part of the body,
the functional disability is assessed by twelve per cent (12%) and the
loss of future earning is calculated accordingly. On the income of
Rs.8,000/-, as calculated by the tribunal, such loss with the multiplier
of 14, correctly adopted by the tribunal, comes to (8,000/- x 12/100 x
12 x 14) Rs.1,61,280/- rounded off to Rs.1,62,000/-. This would mean
the award needs to be reduced by (3,36,000/- - 1,62,000/-)
Rs.1,74,000/-.
7. The total compensation, thus, comes to (6,55,410/- - 1,74,000/-)
Rs.4,81,410/- rounded off to Rs.4,82,000/-. The award is accordingly
modified. It shall carry interest as levied by the tribunal.
8. In terms of order dated 22.04.2016, the insurance company had
deposited the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with the
tribunal, out of which thirty per cent (30%) was allowed to be
released. The tribunal shall release the balance amount to the claimant
in terms of the modification ordered above. Refunding the excess to
the insurance company.
9. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant
insurance company.
10. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
11. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 22, 2017
vk
