Delhi High Court
Rahul Gupta @ Manoj Kumar & Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 23 November, 2017
$~R-555 & 556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23nd November, 2017
+ MAC.APP.794/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate.
versus
RAHUL GUPTA @ MANOJ KUMAR & ORS ....Respondents
Through: Mr. O. P. Mannie, Advocate for
R-1.
+ MAC.APP.542/2013
RAHUL GUPTA @ MANOJ KUMAR & ORS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. O. P. Mannie, Advocate.
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The claimant (appellant in MAC.appeal No.542/2013) had
suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
29.10.2005 involving negligent driving of a half body truck bearing
registration no. HR-38/D-6016, admittedly insured against third party
risk for the period in question with the Oriental Insurance Company
Limited (the insurer). On his accident claim case (MACT No.
309/10/06) instituted on 03.01.2006, the Tribunal held inquiry and, by
judgment dated 02.05.2012, awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.2,75,766/- calculating it thus:-
A) Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
a) Medical bills ......................................Rs.10,000/-
b) Future Medical Expenses........................Rs.5,000/-
c) Special diet....................................... Rs.10,000/-
d) Conveyance charges..............................Rs.5,000/-
e) Loss of Income................................. Rs.18,995/-
f) Loss of future income.............................Rs.1,36,771/-
B) Non-peciniary damages (General damages):
g) Loss of amenities and expectation of life......Rs.20,000/-
h) Pain, sufferings & frustration etc................Rs.70,000/-
______________
Total: Rs.2,75,766/-
2. The liability to pay the said amount was fastened on the insurer,
counsel fee in the sum of Rs.30,000/- having been added thereto.
3. The only ground pressed by the insurance company in its appeal
concerns the inclusion of counsel fee, submitting that it was uncalled
for. Per contra, the claimant argues that in calculating the loss of
future income due to disability assessed at 20%, the element of future
prospects was wrongly kept out. Such contention needs to be
accepted.
4. Following the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Ors., the element of future prospects of increase to
the extent of 40% deserves to be added. Thus, the loss of future
income due to disability is re-computed as Rs.(3166 X 140/100 X
20/100 X 12 X 18) Rs. 1,91,479.68 rounded off to Rs.1,91,480/-. This
would mean the award needs to be increased by (1,91,480/- -
1,36,771/-) Rs.54,709/-. The award is increased to (2,75,766/- +
54,709/-) Rs.3,30,475/- rounded off to Rs.3,31,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs and Thirty One Thousand only). Needless to add, the
increased award will also carry interest as levied by the Tribunal.
5. There being no justification for such inclusion, the direction for
payment of counsel fee is set aside. The award is modified
accordingly.
6. By order dated 27.07.2012 (in MAC. Appeal No. 794/2012), the
insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded
amount with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch and 60% of such
deposit was allowed to be released to the claimant. Since the award
has been increased, the registry shall release the balance lying in
deposit to the claimant. The insurer shall satisfy the balance award by
requisite deposit with the Tribunal within 30 days.
7. The statutory amount shall be refunded upon proof of award
having been satisfied is furnished.
8. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2017
srb
