Delhi High Court
Tim Raj Singh vs Inder & Ors on 30 November, 2017
$~R-603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30th November, 2017
+ MAC. APPEAL No.1009/2012
TIM RAJ SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
INDER & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim case (Suit No. 316/04, old suit No.
1572/2000), instituted on 11.02.2000 by the appellant (claimant), the
Tribunal rendered its judgment on 13.12.2007, awarding total
compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 9% per annum for the
injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
21.06.1999 due to negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.
DL-1P-6491, which was admittedly insured against third party risk
with the third respondent (insurer) for the period in question, the said
amount inclusive of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/-
towards special diet and Rs.20,000/- on account of
conveyance/transportation charges.
2. The claimant had later moved an application for review which
was decided by the Tribunal, by order dated 25.03.2008, adding
Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the compensation
as a lump sum amount payable for loss of income due to functional
disability suffered it being assessed at 20%. It appears the liability to
pay was initially fastened against the owner of the vehicle (the second
respondent), who moved another application for review in the course
of execution proceedings (Ex.70/08) which was decided by order
dated 27.03.2012 whereby such liability was shifted on to the insurer.
3. The appeal at hand is pressed to argue that the loss of future
income due to disability has not been properly calculated and that loss
of income during the period of treatment was also not taken care of. It
is further pointed out that the medical expenditure proved before the
Tribunal was Rs.1,61,572/- out of which Rs.96,806/- had been
reimbursed by the employer (Delhi Transport Corporation), there
being no provision in the award for the balance of Rs.64,746/-.
It is noted that the claimant was employed with Delhi Transport
Corporation as a conductor during the relevant period, the emoluments
at that point of time being in the sum of Rs.6,849/- per month. He was
45 years old at the relevant date (his date of birth being 20.01.1954).
It is admitted that there was no immediate loss of earning or income as
the claimant had continued to be in the service of DTC. The loss of
future income would occur when he would retire on attaining the age
of superannuation (60 Years). In these circumstances, the loss of
future income due to functional disability of 20% would need to be re-
calculated, after factoring in the element of future prospects of
increase to the extent of 30%, following the ruling of 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., as (6,849 X 130/100 X 20/100 X 12 X 9) Rs.1,92,319.92
rounded off to Rs. 1,93,000/-.
4. Since the Tribunal has granted a lump sum amount of
Rs.50,000/- under this head, the award needs to be increased by
(1,93,000-50,000) Rs.1,43,000/-.
5. The record shows that the claimant had remained under
treatment for a period of eight months. The corresponding loss of
value of leave availed also has to be added to the compensation. This
is computed as (6,849 X 8) Rs.54,792/- rounded off to Rs.55,000/-.
6. There was no reason why the balance medical expenditure of
Rs.64,746/- could not have been included in the compensation. The
same is added by rounding it off to Rs.65,000/-.
7. The compensation, thus, deserves to be increased by (1,43,000
+ 55,000 + 65,000) Rs.2,63,000/-. The award is increased to
(1,40,000 + 2,63,000) Rs.4,03,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Three
Thousand Only). Needless to add, the enhanced amount shall carry
interest as levied by the Tribunal.
8. The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the entire award
by requisite deposit before the Tribunal within 30 days thus, making it
available to be released to the claimant.
9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
srb
