Delhi High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Imran & Ors on 18 July, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 415/2016
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Adv.
versus
IMRAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent was injured in a motor vehicular accident
that occurred on 03.08.2012 due to negligent driving of truck bearing
registration no.HR-55J-9462 (the truck) by the second respondent.
The truck was admittedly owned by the third respondent and
concededly insured against third party risk with the appellant
insurance company for the period in question. The first respondent
(the claimant) instituted accident claim case (MAC No.82/2014) on
26.03.2014 on which, after inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the tribunal) awarded compensation in the sum of
Rs.16,64,562/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing
of the petition till realization, calling upon the insurance company to
pay.
2. The insurance company admitting the liability to indemnify has
come up by the appeal at hand and questions the computation of
compensation on account of loss of earning capacity due to disability
and the award of compensation towards future and medical expenses
in addition to raising grievance about the rate of interest.
3. The claimant had submitted before the tribunal that he was
working as a machine operator (loudspeaker/mike) with a contractor
Mohd. Salim. He could not muster evidence about such private
employment. The tribunal, therefore, assumed the income on the basis
of minimum wages payable to a graduate, proof having been adduced
of the claimant having completed the degree course of Bachelor of
Arts. The tribunal assessed the functional disability suffered to be to
the tune of 66%. It is this finding correctness of which is questioned
by the appellant.
4. On perusal of evidence it is found that the claimant had suffered
fracture in the left upper limb. This has resulted in loss of range of
motion in the left elbow. The claimant was examined by a board of
doctors of GTB hospital which issued disability certificate (Ex.PW-
1/A) on 23.03.2015. The certificate was proved by Dr. Ankit Chawla
(PW-2), who was the member of the said board. As per the said
evidence, the medical board found the claimant to have been rendered
permanently disabled to the extent of 66% in relation of the left lower
limb. The tribunal, accepting the plea that the claimant was working
as machine operator in relation to the equipments in the nature of
loudspeaker/mike, was of the opinion that he cannot continue doing
the same work on account of restrictions in the movement of elbow
and thus assessed the functional disability as 66%.
5. In the opinion of this Court, this finding cannot be accepted.
Loudspeakers/mikes are not such equipments as would require
constant motion of elbow so as to assume the physical medical
disability to be equivalent to the functional disability. Noticeably,
even the plea that the claimant was working as machine operator for
such equipment was not strictly proved. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances, the functional disability cannot be more than 20%.
The loss of future earning capacity, thus, has to be calculated
accordingly.
6. The claimant was born on 10.06.1989 and, thus, was about 23
years of age when the accident occurred. The future loss of income on
account of disability has to be calculated with the multiplier of 18.
Since there is no proof of regular income or employment, there is no
occasion for addition of element of future prospects. Thus, the loss of
future income is computed as (9282/- x 20/100 x 12 x 18)
Rs.4,00,982.4 rounded off to Rs.4,01,000/-.
7. In view of the injuries suffered and their lasting effect, the
grievance as to the award of Rs.10,000/- towards future medical
expenses cannot be accepted. Thus, adding the other components of
compensation, as awarded by the tribunal, the total compensation
comes to (9564/- +4,01,000/- + 74,256/-, 10,000/- + 17,500/-, +
20,000/- + 1,00,000/- + 50,000/- + 60,000/-) Rs.7,42,320/- rounded off
to Rs.7,43,000/-.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this Court [see judgment
dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP. 165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.], the rate of interest is reduced to 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
9. By order dated 18.05.2016, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit entire awarded amount with upto date interest out
of which 50% was allowed to be released and the balance was kept in
fixed deposit receipt.
10. The tribunal shall release the balance in terms of the modified
award, refunding the excess deposited by the insurance company.
11. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
12. The statutory amount, if deposited, shall also be refunded to the
appellant insurance company.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 18, 2017
vk
