Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Seema Sharma & Ors. on 22 November, 2017
$~R-526
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 22nd November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 707/2012
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. ... Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya,
Advocate
versus
SEEMA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Peeush Sharma and Mr.
Shaurya Mitra Tomar,
Advocates for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim case (MACT case no.370/10/09)
instituted on 18.11.2009 by the first respondent (claimant), the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) by judgment dated 25.04.2012,
awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.13,37,002/- fastening the
liability on the appellant / insurer to pay, it admittedly having issued
an insurance policy covering third party risk in respect of the
offending vehicle described as Tata 407 bearing registration no.HR-
56-0069. The award includes Rs.5,90,400/- towards loss of future
income, on the basis of conclusion that the claimant has suffered
functional disability to the extent of 50%.
2. The appeal by the insurer, inter alia, is pressed for
reconsideration of the conclusion about the functional disability it
being pointed out that the disability certificate (Ex.PW3/A) issued on
10.12.2010 by board of doctors of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar
Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had indicated its validity to be only
two years, there being a need for re-evaluation thereafter which was
never undertaken. The insurer also submits that since the medico legal
certificate indicated influence of alcohol, the tribunal fell into error by
rejecting the plea of contributory negligence.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the claimant argued that the
treatment of the claimant has continued post decision in the claim
petition by the tribunal, including for removal of the implants,
necessitating further medical expenditure which has not been taken
care of by the impugned judgment. He submitted that the conclusion
on the issue of presence of alcohol as reached by the tribunal is correct
but the matter concerning the computation of compensation deserves
further inquiry in the course of which the claimant would not only
need to undergo further evaluation to assess the effect of injuries
suffered but also to prove further medical expenditure.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this court finds
no merit in the plea about contributory negligence. The tribunal has
considered this issue properly and rejected the contention based on the
observation in the MLC about presence of alcohol, in absence of any
blood test report indicating the level of such presence.
5. In the given facts and circumstances, the issue of compensation
deserves further inquiry and, therefore, the impugned judgment to the
extent the compensation was thereby determined is set aside and the
matter remanded to the tribunal for further inquiry. In such further
proceedings, the claimant as well as the parties that contest will be
given opportunity to lead additional evidence and the claimant also
subjected to fresh evaluation by a medical board to be arranged by the
tribunal. The tribunal shall, thereafter, adjudicate on the issue afresh
not feeling bound by the view taken in the earlier judgment.
6. In terms of order dated 11.07.2012, the insurance company had
been directed to deposit 60% of the amount awarded by the impugned
judgment with up-to-date interest excluding the counsel fee and out of
pocket expenses. The said amount was permitted to be released to the
claimant in terms of orders dated 11.07.2012 and 12.08.2013. The
amount already received by the claimant will be liable to be adjusted
against the amount of compensation to be determined by the tribunal
by its fresh judgment or appropriate directions passed in its regard.
7. The statutory amount shall be refunded.
8. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on
20.12.2017.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 22, 2017
yg
