Delhi High Court
Amarjeet Singh & Ors. vs Reliance General Insurance ... on 7 December, 2017
$~R-667 & 668
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 07th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1211/2012 and CM 19600/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
AMARJEET SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
+ MAC APPEAL 352/2013
AMARJEET SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: None
versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Amarjeet Singh (the claimant) had instituted accident claim
case (MACT 392/2008) on 03.07.2009 seeking compensation for the
injuries sustained and the disability consequently suffered in a motor
vehicular accident that had taken place on 28.03.2009 due to negligent
driving of a motor vehicle described as JCB bearing registration
no.HR-69-8650, which was admittedly insured against third party risk
for the period in question with Reliance General Insurance Company
Ltd. (insurer). The offending vehicle was proved to have been driven
negligently by Roshan Singh, driver and owned by Pradeep Singh
(owner), respondents in these appeals. The tribunal held both of them
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. It determined
compensation in the total sum of Rs.15,93,226/- calculating it thus :-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special damages)
Medical expenses Rs.6,50,000/-
Loss of future income Rs.7,43,526/-
Special diet expenses Rs.25,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs.25,000/-
NON-PECUNIARY
DAMAGES (GENERAL
DAMAGES)
Pain, suffering, mental shock Rs.1,50,000/-
and trauma
Total Rs.15,93,226/-
2. The liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the
insurer, its plea about breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy having been rejected on the reasoning that it had
failed to prove its case in this regard.
3. The insurer, by its appeal (MACA 1211/2012), questions the
award on the ground that the tribunal fell into error by assuming the
functional disability to the extent of 70% and by adding the element of
future prospects of increase in income to the extent of 50% for
calculating the loss of income in future due to disability. It also
submits the grievance that its evidence on the issue of breach of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy was overlooked and not
even discussed.
4. Per contra, the claimant by his appeal (MACA 352/2013)
argues that the tribunal has not granted adequate compensation, the
award in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the composite head of pain
and suffering, mental shock and trauma, being inadequate.
5. The disability has occurred on account of amputation of the
right lower limb below knee. In a similarly placed case which was
subject matter of MACA 563/2009, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Smt. Sushila & Ors., decided on 23.08.2017, such condition has been
taken as leading to functional disability to the extent of 60%. Having
regard to the parity with the present case, the loss of income in future
due to disability requires to be assessed accordingly.
6. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., the element of
future prospects of increase in income has to be restricted to 40%.
The loss of income in the future due to disability is thus re-calculated
as [Rs.3,934/- x 140/100 x 60/100 x 12 x 15] Rs.5,94,820.80, rounded
off to Rs.5,95,000/-.
7. The grievance of the claimant about inadequacy of the general
damages is correct. In lieu of the composite award, Rs.1,50,000/- is
added towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- is further added
under the head of loss of amenities of life.
8. Thus, the total compensation in the case, putting together other
heads of damages, is calculated as [Rs.6,50,000/- + Rs.5,95,000/- +
Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-]
Rs.15,95,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh and ninety five thousand only).
The award is modified accordingly. It shall carry interest as levied by
the tribunal.
9. The tribunal's record would show that the insurer had led
evidence on the issue of breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy by examining Dr. Ajay Kumar Pandey (R3W1),
District Transport Officer, Saran Chhapra, Bihar and Rakesh Sonkar
(R3W2), Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Noticeably, the
evidence of the said witnesses was not even discussed by the tribunal
in the impugned judgment. The observation that the insurer had failed
to discharge its onus to prove in such regard is thus perverse and
therefore, cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances, it will
be proper to remit the case to the extent of consideration of the plea of
recovery rights to be granted to the tribunal for adjudication.
10. By order dated 23.11.2012 on the file of MACA 1211/2012, the
insurance company had been called upon to deposit 50% of the
awarded amount with up-to-date proportionate interest with UCO
Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, and by order dated 08.04.2013, fifty
percent (50%) of the deposited amount was permitted to be released to
the claimant. Since the compensation has been enhanced, though
marginally, the entire balance in deposit shall be released to the
claimant in terms of the judgment of the tribunal. The insurer will be
obliged to satisfy the entire enhanced award by requisite deposit of the
balance with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to be
released.
11. The issue of recovery rights is remitted to the tribunal for
further inquiry and appropriate adjudication. For such purposes, the
parties particularly, the insurer, driver and owner of the offending
vehicle are directed to appear before the tribunal on 08.02.2017. If the
claimant so chooses, he may also participate in such inquiry.
12. The statutory amount paid by the insurance company will be
refunded after proof is shown of the award having been satisfied.
13. Both appeals and the pending application are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2017
yg
