Delhi High Court
Dp Pandey vs Gurmej Singh & Ors on 13 November, 2017
$~R-473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 13th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 306/2012
DP PANDEY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. O.P. Mainee, Adv.
versus
GURMEJ SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was employed as a Constable with Central
Reserve Police Force (CRPF) during the relevant period and had gone
to Dhaula Kuan Area on official duty on 28.02.1993 where while he
was walking on foot, he was hit by a motor vehicle described as Delhi
Police van bearing registration No. DBP 8172 from behind due to
which he was injured. He instituted accident claim case (MAC
14/93/11) on 07.05.1993, impleading the respondents as parties on the
other side, alleging that the accident had occurred due to negligent
driving of the said police van. The case was put to inquiry and decided
by judgment dated 14.03.2007 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
holding, inter alia, that the claimant had suffered injuries due to
negligent driving of the above said vehicle of the respondents.
2. It appears the claimant had pleaded that he had suffered
permanent disability. However, no formal proof was brought at that
stage and the tribunal, by its judgment dated 14.03.2007, granted total
compensation in the sum of Rs. 31,000/-.
3. The claimant brought a challenge to the said judgment by MAC
Appeal no. 586/2007 in the course of which it was pleaded that his
right hand was paralysed and he was unable to walk without support,
his permanent disability having been certified to be to the extent of
65%. Since the question of formal proof of such disability arose, on
his request, for opportunity for leading additional evidence and the
inquiry was revived before the tribunal, its earlier judgment dated
14.03.2007 having been set aside and the matter remitted by order
dated 13.01.2009 of this Court.
4. During the course of further inquiry before the tribunal,
additional evidence was adduced, reliance being placed on disability
certificate issued by board of doctors of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Hospital, New Delhi. The tribunal, by its fresh judgment dated
19.09.2011, was not satisfied mainly on the ground that no doctor who
was a member of the board had been examined. By fresh judgment,
however, compensation was enhanced to Rs. 43,500/- with interest @
7.5% per annum only on the enhanced portion of the award from
03.02.2009 till the date of the judgment, the amount of Rs. 43,500/-
awarded as compensation calculated thus:
S.No. Heads Compensation
1. Pain & suffering Rs. 15,000/-
2. Loss of Amenities Rs. 15,000/-
3. Medicines Rs. 2,500/-
4. Special diet & conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
5. Loss of income Rs. 6,000/-
Total Rs. 43,500/-
5. Aggrieved with the compensation awarded by the fresh
judgment of the tribunal, the present appeal was filed, the prime
grievance being that there has been no award made on account of loss
of future income due to disability.
6. During the course of proceedings arising out of the appeal, on
his request (CM No. 5862/2014), the appellant was allowed
opportunity to lead fresh additional evidence. Availing the said
opportunity, Dr. Harish Gupta, Consultant Medicine of Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital, a member of the medical board which had
issued the disability certificate (Ex.PW-3/A) dated 01.12.2010 was
examined. Noticeably, the evidence of Dr. Harish Gupta, tendered on
26.02.2015, has not been challenged, the opportunity for cross-
examination having not been availed by the second respondent, who
only is now contesting the appeal.
7. The appeal was put in the list of 'regulars', to come up on its
own turn, as per order dated 15.03.2016. Thereafter, it has taken up
on some dates, inter alia, to explore the possibility of amicable
resolution through Lok Adalat, but with no fruitful results. When it is
taken up for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of the
respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and
with his assistance, the record perused.
8. The injuries suffered by the appellant described in the disability
certificate (Ex.PW-2/A) issued by the Department of Rehabilitation of
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 23.05.1994 to be fracture of
subluxation C5/C6 with PIVD C5/C6 with C5/C6 Foraminal stenosis
with spastic quadriparesis. The claimant remained hospitalized
initially in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and thereafter in CRPF
Hospital till 18.04.1994, the treatment continuing even beyond. He
had initially relied upon disability certificate (Ex-PW2/B) dated
13.12.1999 issued by a board of doctors of a Hospital at Gorakhpur
(Uttar Pradesh). It is the said certificate which was found to be
unacceptable by the tribunal in the initial judgment. He deposed
before the tribunal that he would retire from CRPF service on medical
grounds at the age of 48 years. The learned counsel for the appellant,
at the hearing, submits the claimant had taken voluntary retirement as
he could not continue with the strict regime required to be followed in
the service of CRPF as the personnel are expected to be medically fit
at all times.
9. During the course of further inquiry, the claimant was examined
by a board of doctors of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital which
issued disability certificate on 01.12.2010 (vide Ex.PW-3/A) affirming
his disability to be 62% permanent in relation to the whole body. This
is what has been affirmed by Sh. S.Mehto (PW-3) Medical Record
Officer of the said hospital and also affirmed in the course of
additional evidence by Dr. Harish Gupta who was examined on
26.02.2015 in the proceedings arising out of the appeal at hand.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant
would be satisfied if the loss of income due to functional disability
post form retirement from service at the age of 60 years were to be
compensated.
11. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered and the
aftermath sustained, as has been assessed by the board of doctors of
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, the claimant deserves
compensation for loss of future income due to functional disability
which, in the given fact-situation, must be treated as 62%.
12. The tribunal, it is noted, found in the impugned judgment that
the claimant was earning Rs. 2200/- per month at the relevant point of
time. Following the ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., the accident
having occurred when claimant was aged 43 years, the element of
future prospects of increase to the extent of 30% would deserve to be
added. Since the age of superannuation would ordinarily be 60, the
compensation has to be determined with the multiplier of 9.
13. Thus, the loss of future income due to functional disability is
computed as (2200 x 130 ÷100 x 62÷100 x 12 x 9) Rs. 1,91,505.60,
rounded off to Rs. 1,92,000/-.
14. Having regard to the nature of injuries, and the extent of
disability suffered, as also the prolonged treatment undergone, the
damages under the heads of pain & suffering and loss of amenities of
life are increased to Rs. 50,000/- each.
15. Adding the other components of compensation awarded by the
tribunal, the total compensation payable in the case comes to
(1,92,000 + 50,000 + 50,000 + 2,500, + 5,000 + 6,000) Rs. 3,05,500/-,
rounded off to Rs. 3,06,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs and Six Thousand
Only). The award is enhanced accordingly.
16. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP.
165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.]
17. The second respondent will be obliged to satisfy the enhanced
award by requisite deposit with the tribunal within thirty days.
Needless to add, the amount already paid in terms of the judgment of
the tribunal shall be liable to be adjusted.
18. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 13, 2017
nk
