Delhi High Court
Reliance Gen Insurance Co Ltd vs Ashok Kumar Raut & Ors on 19 December, 2017
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th December, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 917/2012 and CM APPL.14582/2012
RELIANCE GEN INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Adv. with
Mr. P. Srinivasan, Advocate
versus
ASHOK KUMAR RAUT & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim case (MACT No.549/2010) of the first
respondent (the claimant) instituted on 23.01.2010, the tribunal
returned a finding that he (the claimant) had suffered injuries which
had rendered him permanently disabled due to motor vehicular
accident that took place on 18.09.2009 involving negligent driving of
motor vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1M-2843, which was
admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question
with the appellant (insurer), and awarded compensation in the total
sum of Rs.10,34,550/-, calculating it thus:-
Sl.No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of income 26,262/-
2. Medical expenses 33,000/-
3. Loss of future income, etc. 6,30,288/-
4. Special diet 15,000/-
5. Conveyance charges 15,000/-
6. Future treatment medical expenses 15,000/-
7. Pain, suffering & trauma and 1,50,000/-
8. Loss of amenities, enjoyment of life, etc. 1,50,000/-
Total 10,34,550/-
2. The liability to pay was fastened on the insurer with interest @
9% per annum, with further directions that it would pay Rs.30,000/- as
counsel fee to one advocate, Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee to another
advocate, besides Rs.5,000/- as out of pocket expenses.
3. The claimant had suffered injuries that included grievous hurt in
the nature of fracture of the neck right of the femur bone, fracture of
the shaft of the right femur bone, fracture of the right ankle, besides
abrasions and blunt injuries all over the body. The claimant
underwent several surgical procedures in spite of which he has been
rendered permanently disabled, his permanent physical impairment
having been evaluated by board of doctors of Hindu Rao Hospital
(Ex.PW-2/A) to be to the extent of 22% in relation to the right lower
limb on account of aforementioned fractures of the neck and shaft of
the right femur bone, besides stiffness of the ankle and shortening of
the right lower limb. The tribunal took note of the fact that the
claimant was working for gain as a driver and took functional
disability to be to the extent of 50% and made calculation of loss of
future income accordingly.
4. By the appeal at hand, the insurer takes exception to the
assessment of the functional disability and to the directions of
payment of counsel fee and out of pocket expenses.
5. Given the above state of the disability, having regard to the
nature of avocation from which the claimant was earning his
livelihood, this court finds the assessment of the functional disability
made by the tribunal to be just and correct. Therefore, there is no case
made out for any interference in the award of compensation.
6. However, there being no justification for such inclusion, the
directions in the award for payment of lawyer's fee and out of pocket
expenses are set aside.
7. By order dated 27.08.2012, the insurer was directed to deposit
the entire awarded amount (less counsel's fee and out of pocket
expenses) with upto date interest with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court,
New Delhi. However, till date no proof of deposit has been filed.
Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the account of the insurer
has been attached by the tribunal. The tribunal would ensure the award
is enforced.
8. The statutory deposit shall be refunded to the insurer only after
proof of award having been satisfied is shown.
9. The appeal and the pending application stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2017
vk
