Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar vs Puneet [email protected] & Ors. on 27 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: January 27, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 36/2008
ANIL KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, Advocate
Versus
PUNEET KAUR @ POONAM & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
respondent No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
1. Impugned Award of 29th September, 2007 grants compensation of
`69,140/- with interest @9% p.a. to appellant due to grievous injuries
suffered by him in a road accident on 16 th May, 1998. Impugned Award
directs owner of vehicle in question to pay the compensation and
absolves respondent-insurer, as the driver of vehicle in question was
found to be not possessing any driving license. In this appeal, a direction
is sought to respondent-insurer to pay the awarded amount and to recover
it from the owner of vehicle in question. Impugned Award denies loss of
income of `54,000/- by observing that notionally there was no loss of
income because appellant-injured had availed earned leaves to recover
from the injuries suffered in the road accident in question.
2. The factual matrix of this case already stands noted in the
impugned Award and so, needs no reproduction.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that loss of income of
`54,000/- has been erroneously declined to appellant who is entitled to it.
Learned counsel for appellant relies upon Supreme Court's decision in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Geeta Bhat & ors. (2008) 12
SCC 426 to submit that in the case of there being no driving license,
liability is of the insurer to pay and recover it from the owner of vehicle
in question. Reliance is also placed upon decision of a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Ashwani Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014
ACJ 153 to submit that even if injured utilizes earned leaves to recover
from the injuries suffered, still injured is to be compensated for the loss of
earned leaves.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-insurer supports
the impugned Award and relies upon Supreme Court's decision in
Sardari & ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & ors. 2008 ACJ 1307 to submit that
insurance company has been rightly exempted from the liability to pay.
Nothing else is urged on behalf of respondent-insurer.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decisions cited, I find that decision in Sardari (supra),
question of liability to pay the compensation has not been specifically
dealt with, whereas in Geeta Bhat (supra), it has been specifically dealt
with. So, while relying upon Supreme Court's decision in Geeta Bhat
(supra), impugned Award is modified to the extent that liability to pay is
fastened upon respondent-insurer with the right to recover it from the
owner of vehicle in question. So far as the loss of income is concerned, I
find that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not justified in
disallowing it by observing that there is no notional loss of income. I find
no reason to take a different view that the one taken by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar (supra). Consequently, appellant
is granted compensation of `54,000/- on account of loss of income.
Impugned Award is modified in this regard also.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that respondent-insurer shall
pay the enhanced compensation of `54,000/- with interest @9% p.a. to
appellant-claimant within eight weeks, failing which appellant shall be at
liberty to get the Award executed. Thereafter, respondent-insurance shall
be well within its rights to recover it from owner and driver of offending
vehicle in question.
7. With aforesaid modifications in the impugned Award, this appeal
is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2017
r
