Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ram Chet & Ors. on 7 July, 2017
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 7th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 777/2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv.
versus
RAM CHET & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Braj Kishore Roy &
Mr. Kapil Kaushik, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent was working as Work Assistant Lineman
with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.(MTNL) at the then salary of
Rs. 34,474/- per month on 06.02.2012 when he met with an accident
suffering injuries due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle described
as TATA 407 bearing registration no. DL 1LM 0545 which was
concededly insured against third party risk with the appellant
insurance company for the period in question. He filed accident claim
case (MACT 39/2015) in the wake of detailed accident report (DAR)
submitted by the local police on 4.4.2012. The inquiry into the said
claim case resulted eventually in judgment dated 28.07.2015 which
was modified by subsequent order dated 07.08.2015.
2. A conjoint reading of the judgment and order would show that
the tribunal upheld the contention about injuries having been suffered
due to rash or negligent driving of the above-mentioned vehicle. This
finding has attained finality as it was not challenged by any of the
respondents including the appellant herein.
3. In terms of the modified award, compensation in the sum of Rs.
6,64,835/- with interest has been granted in favour of the first
respondent (claimant), the computation thereof being shown in the
order dated 07.08.2015 as under:-
A. Loss of Future income Rs. 4,72,500/-
B. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,19,835/-
C. Loss of enjoyment of amenities of Rs. 25,000/-
life
D. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
E. Conveyance and Special Diet Rs. 20,000/-
F. Attendant services rendered by Rs. 10,000/-
Family members
Total Rs.6,87,335/-
4. The insurance company questions the calculation of loss of
future income on the ground that it is wrongly based on the multiplier
of 7. This contention must be rejected. The tribunal has given sound
reasons for adopting the multiplier of 7. Since there was no actual loss
of income, claimant having continued to be in the service of MTNL
and having been given the salary which was due, the assessment of
future income is based on the conclusion that the claimant had
suffered functional disability to the extent of 37.5% and would
continue to be gainfully engaged even after retirement post the age of
60 years. In the main judgment, the tribunal did observe that such
expectation of claimant being employed gainfully beyond the age of
superannuation would be for five years. But, given the dicta in Sarla
Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
multiplier of 7 for the age group 61-65 was the appropriate basis for
computation.
5. The insurance company, however, also argues that in the
calculation the tribunal missed out on the requirement of deducting the
income tax liability. This submission must also be rejected for the
reasons the assumed income was taken as Rs.15,000/- which would be
below minimum tax limits for the corresponding financial year.
6. The last contention raised by the insurance company concerns
the medical expenses awarded to the tune of Rs. 1,19,835/-. It is
pointed out that two documents mark „A‟ and mark „B‟ were
disallowed because the claimant had already taken reimbursement of
the medical expenses thereby shown from his employer. It is
submitted that the bills (Ex.PW-1/4, Ex.PW-1/8, Ex.PW-1/9, Ex.PW-
1/10 collectively) showing further medical expenditure to the tune of
Rs.1,19,835/- though submitted in original have to be read alongside
the assertion that they represented expenditure which were "yet to be
reimbursed". Since it is shown that the expenditure incurred by these
documents had not resulted in reimbursement by the employer, the
argument of the appellant cannot be accepted.
7. The appeal is, thus, dismissed.
8. By order dated 12.10.2015, the insurance company was called
upon to deposit the awarded amount with interest with the Registrar
General of this Court, from which 50% was allowed to be released and
the rest kept in interest bearing fixed deposit with UCO Bank, Delhi
High Court Branch, New Delhi. The said balance amount lying in
fixed deposit shall also be released to the claimant in terms of the
award.
9. Statutory deposit, shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 07, 2017
nk
