Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. ... vs Sh. Rajesh Prasad & Ors. on 19 July, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19th July, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 858/2015
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INS. CO. LTD....... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
versus
SH. RAJESH PRASAD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent was awarded compensation in the total sum
of Rs. 18,10,000/- with interest by the tribunal, by judgment dated
29.07.2015 on the file of accident claim case (suit no. D-310/2014),
for the injuries and disability suffered by him as a result of motor
vehicular accident that occurred on 22.06.2014 involving rash driving
of Honda City car bearing registration no. DL 9CU 1096 which was
admittedly insured against third party risk with the insurance company
which was burdened with the liability to pay.
2. The insurance company while admitting the liability to
indemnify the insured (owner of the car) questions the computation on
two grounds. It submits that the addition of 50% of future prospects
of increase in income was uncalled for, given the fact that the claimant
then aged 34 years, was to retire from the service in the position of
Petty Officer in Indian Navy in February, 2015. It is also the
contention of the insurance company that the addition of Rs. 50,000/-
in the component of loss of income on the ground that the claimant
had availed leave for 56 days as per leave record (Ex.PW-1/5) was not
proper inasmuch as the claimant in the course of deposition has
admitted that there was no salary loss.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the insurance company,
this Court is of the opinion that the appeal must fail on both counts.
4. The claimant concededly was in regular service of Indian Navy.
It may be that the tenure of the said service was only for 15 years but
then the evidence also shows the said tenure was subject to extension
which could not be availed of due to the permanent disability suffered.
Even otherwise, it cannot be said that after discharge from the said
service in Indian Navy, the claimant would not work for gain. His
capacity for gainful employment has suffered on account of disability
which has to be compensated.
5. The leave earned by a salaried person is meant for being availed
for own purposes. The fact that the claimant had to take leave of
absence from duty on account of the injuries suffered is a reason
which has been foisted on him by the circumstances arising out of the
accident. The evidence shows the leave earned could be encashed at
the time of retirement from service. Therefore, there has been a net
loss in terms of money which has been rightly included in the award.
6. The appeal is dismissed.
7. By order dated 06.11.2015, the insurance company was directed
to deposit the awarded amount with the Registrar General of this
Court, from which fifty per cent (50%) was allowed to be released to
the claimants. The balance kept in interest bearing fixed deposit in
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall now be released to the
claimant.
8. Statutory deposit shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 19, 2017
nk
