Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Huda Parveen (Minor) & Ors. on 16 November, 2017
$~16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 16th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 511/2016
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arihant Jain for Ms.
Shantha Devi Raman, Adv.
versus
HUDA PARVEEN (MINOR) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accident claim case (MACT no. 370/2012) was instituted on
behalf of the first respondent (the claimant) on 16.10.2012 by her
father (natural guardian) seeking compensation under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries suffered in a motor
vehicular accident that had occurred on 19.04.2012 involving
negligent driving of vehicle TATA 407 (offending vehicle)
bearing registration no. UP 24D 7186. It appears that a number
of persons had suffered injuries, some of whom had died in the
same accident. Therefore, other claim petitions had also come up
before the accident claims tribunal which clubbed all the claim
petitions including the claim case of the first respondent for
purposes of inquiry. The said cases were decided by common
judgment dated 30.03.2016, returning a finding that the accident
had occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
its driver (the second respondent). Thus, the second respondent
(the driver) and the third respondent (the owner) were held liable,
jointly and severally, to pay compensation. The liability to pay, in
turn, fell on the shoulders of the insurer (appellant) as the
offending vehicle was insured against third party risk with the
appellant (insurer) for the period in question.
2. The findings on the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle
and the negligence on the part of the driver (the second
respondent) have attainted finality as it was not challenged by any
of the contesting respondents.
3. On the question of compensation, it was claimed before the
Tribunal on behalf of the first respondent that she had suffered
injuries in the head and, consequently, she had been rendered
temporarily disabled to the extent of 52.22%. Reliance was
placed on disability certificate (Ex-PW6/1) issued to her after
examination by a board of doctors of the Institute of Human
Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), of the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi. It is noted in (page 22 of) the impugned judgment of the
tribunal that the counsel representing the claimant had submitted
that the injured was in need of money and, therefore, she could
not wait for reassessment as was mentioned in the disability
certificate (Ex-PW6/1) issued by IHBAS in November 2015. The
condition requiring reassessment is described as head injury with
left semiparesis with left facial palsy. The tribunal, however,
proceeded to conclude that the claimant suffers from total
functional disability (to the extent of 100%) and has awarded
compensation inclusive of loss of future income on such basis.
4. It is mentioned here that the compensation awarded in the total
sum of Rs.27,27,743/- in favour of the claimant includes damages
under the heads of pain and sufferings, disfiguration/ amenities of
life, loss of marital prospects, loss of study/education, loss of
future income due to permanent disability, special diet, medical
bills, special treatment/ aid for rest of her life, expenditure
towards conveyance and expenditure towards salary of attendant.
It was pointed out at the hearing by the counsel for the insurer
(the appellant) that some of the awards are overlapping giving
double advantage, reference in particular being made to the
provision for attendant charges which is covered under the head
of special treatment/ aid for rest of life. The tribunal has also
levied interest over and above the compensation awarded, the
grievance in appeal being that such levy against the provision
made for future treatment was unjustified.
5. After some hearing, the counsel for the claimant fairly conceded
that in absence of proper evaluation of the nature and the extent
of disability suffered, the conclusion that the claimant has been
rendered functionally disabled to the extent of 100% for rest of
her life is unsubstantiated. He submitted that in this view the
impugned judgment may be set aside but with request that the
matter may be remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry so that
proper evaluation of disability can be secured, in the face of
recommendation of 2015 by IHBAS for a review after one year
and fresh decision be taken on basis of such medical opinion.
6. In the foregoing facts and circumstances reserving all the
contentions of the insurer as noted above, the impugned judgment
is set aside. The claim case of the first respondent is remanded to
the tribunal for further inquiry and fresh adjudication. Needless to
add, the tribunal shall seek the claimant to be evaluated by a
board of doctors for the evaluation of her condition. The opinion
shall be in the form of final opinion on the condition of the
claimant for the rest of her life. The claimant will be entitled to
lead further evidence, should it be required, whereafter
opportunity shall also be given to the contesting parties to lead
evidence in rebuttal, if any. It is made clear that tribunal shall
take a fresh call on the question of 'just compensation', not
feeling bound by the view in the judgment which is set aside.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 18th
December, 2017 before the tribunal.
8. In terms of the order dated 19.07.2016, the insurance company
had been directed to deposit the entire amount awarded by the
tribunal in the impugned judgment within upto date interest @
9% per annum with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch within
specified period. By the same order, 10% of the said deposited
amount was allowed to be transferred into the Savings Bank
account of the first respondent (the claimant), further directions
being for the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to be released in ten
different FDRs of varying durations and the remainder amount to
be kept in fixed deposit for the period(s) specified. By order dated
08.12.2016, an FDR of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was additionally
released to the claimant.
9. By order dated 28.04.2017, further amount of Rs.10,00,000 was
released to the claimant. The entire amount presently lying in
fixed deposit for various periods with accrued interest shall
presently be refunded to the insurance company along with the
statutory deposit made by it. The amounts already received by
the claimant, shall be liable to be adjusted against the fresh
adjudication to be made by the tribunal.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
11. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 16, 2017
umang
