Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar vs Sunil Kumar & Ors. on 20 November, 2017
$~R-509
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 566/2012
SATISH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
versus
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant, aged 24 years old, a graduate in the Business
Administration, earning his livelihood as a Computer Operator at the
relevant time, on 30.01.2010, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident that was caused due to the negligent driving of Jeep bearing
Registration no.RJ-14-6C-0503 by the first respondent (driver). The
vehicle has admittedly insured against third party risk with the third
respondent (insurer) for the period in question.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment
dated 23.02.2012, decided his accident claim case (MACT
178/11/2010) instituted on 26.05.2010 and awarded compensation in
the total sum of Rs.3,12,600/- fastening the liability on the insurer to
pay with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. It may be mentioned here
that the said amount of compensation includes loss of income due to
functional disability which was assessed at 5% .
3. The appeal at hand is pressed by the claimant to seek enhanced
compensation on account of loss of future income due to disability, the
submission being that the conclusion on the extent of functional
disability by the tribunal was erroneous and unjust.
4. It is noted that the injuries suffered by the claimant included
displaced fracture of left shaft femur (upper 3rd) and displaced fracture
of right tibia fibula (middle one-third). He was evaluated by a board
of doctors of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and disability
certificate (Ex. PW1/104) was issued. According to the said
assessment, the total locomotor disability was found to be 70%. But
then, the claimant being a paralytic from the time prior to the date of
the accident, the disability due to trauma suffered as a result of the
injuries sustained in the accident was assessed at 30% only. The
tribunal has taken this as a functional disability of 50% which, this
court accepts the argument of the claimant, was not proper evaluation.
5. Given the nature of the job in which the claimant had been
engaged, the functional disability should have been the same as the
medical disability i.e. of 30%.
6. Thus, the loss of future income due to disability is re-assessed,
after adding the element of future prospects of increase in income
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. to the extent of 40%, at
[Rs.6,000 x 140/100 x 30/100 x 12 x 18] Rs.5,44,320/- (Rupees Five
lakh forty four thousand and three hundred twenty only).
7. Since the tribunal awarded Rs.64,800/- under this head, the
award would thus need to be increased by [Rs.5,44,320/ (-)
Rs.64,800/-] Rs.4,79,520/- (Rupees Four lakh seventy nine thousand
and five hundred twenty only). Therefore, the total compensation is
re-computed as [Rs.4,79,520/- + Rs.3,12,600/-] Rs.7,92,120/-,
rounded off to Rs.7,93,000/- (Rupees Seven lakh and ninety three
thousand only).
8. The award is modified accordingly.
9. 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.]
10. The insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days. The amount thus
deposited shall be released to the claimant in the form of an interest
bearing fixed deposit receipt taken out from a nationalized bank for a
period of 10 years with right to draw periodic interest.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
yg
