Delhi High Court
Uttam Prakash Bhatia vs M/S. Icici Lombard General ... on 11 December, 2017
$~R-690
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th December, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 1275/2012
UTTAM PRAKASH BHATIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava,
Advocate
versus
M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Ms.
Anjali Chawla for Ms. Suman
Bagga, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (suit no.11/2009), was instituted by the
appellant (claimant) on 06.01.2009, seeking compensation for injuries
sustained and the permanent disability consequently suffered, due to a
motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 26.09.2008, on account
of negligent driving of a motor vehicle described as one bearing
registration no.DL-1PB-4061, admittedly insured against third party
risk for the period in question with the first respondent (insurer).
2. By judgment dated 28.05.2012, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Tribunal), awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.12,69,025/-, directing the insurer to pay with interest at the rate of
7.5% p.a. Though the appeal as presented would not say so, at the
hearing, it is pointed out by the learned counsel on both sides, that on
an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, moved by the claimant, the tribunal, by order dated 27.08.2012,
corrected arithmetical errors and re-computed the compensation in the
total sum of Rs.20,47,934/- calculating it thus :-
Loss of future income because of Rs.16,35,836/-
permanent disability and amputation
Non pecuniary damages Rs.1,00,000/-
Cost of artificial limbs Rs.1,68,838/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,23,260/-
Travelling expenses and special diet Rs.20,000/-
Rs.20,47,934/-
3. The appeal is pressed by the claimant to point out that the
tribunal had failed to factor in the element of future prospects of
increase in income in the calculations. Per contra, the counsel for the
insurer pointed out that the claimant had shown by evidence that he
was a self-employed person and was paying income tax, he having
relied on two income tax returns (ITRs), one (Ex.PW5/5) for the
assessment year (AY) 2007-2008 declaring total income of
Rs.1,97,532/- and the other (Ex. PW5/4) whereby income for AY
2008-2009 was declared in the total sum of Rs.2,21,913/-, the latter
return submitted after the motor vehicular accident giving rise to the
cause of action.
4. In the above facts and circumstances, while the grievance of the
claimant that he was not given the benefit of future prospects of
increase in income is found to be correct, it is not considered safe to
go by the ITR for the assessment year 2008-2009. Instead the
calculations deserve to be made on the basis of ITR for the previous
assessment year i.e. 2007-2008.
5. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was 46 years old on
the relevant date, given 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 to the extent of 25%
deserves to be factored in. Thus, loss of income in future due to
functional disability after deducting the income tax liability is re-
computed as [Rs.1,97,532/- (-) Rs.5,000/- x 125/100 x 60/100 x 13]
Rs.18,77,187/-. Since the tribunal had awarded Rs.16,35,836/- under
this head, the award needs to be increased by [Rs.18,77,187/- (-)
Rs.16,35,836/-] Rs.2,41,351/-.
6. It is noted that the claimant had suffered partial amputation of
the left lower limb. In this view of the matter, awards under the non-
pecuniary heads of damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain
and suffering and Rs.50,000/- for dis-figurement are found to be
inadequate. The same are increased to Rs.1,00,000/- each. In
addition, Rs.1,00,000/- is added for loss of amenities of life. Thus, the
total award needs to be increased by [Rs.2,41,351/- + Rs.50,000/- +
Rs.50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-] Rs.4,41,351/- .
7. The total award is, therefore, enhanced to [Rs.20,47,934/- +
Rs.4,41,351/-] Rs.24,89,285/-, rounded off to Rs.24,90,000/- (Rupees
Twenty four lakh and ninety thousand only).
8. The award is modified accordingly.
9. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% (nine percent) per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016
in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi
& Ors.]
10. It is directed that the first respondent shall satisfy the enhanced
award, by requisite deposit with the tribunal, within 30 days, making it
available to be released to the claimant. The release of the amount
now payable to the claimant will be in the form of interest bearing
fixed deposit receipt, taken out from a nationalized bank, for a period
of five years, with right to draw periodic interest.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2017
yg
