Delhi High Court
Santosh Singh vs Ramesh Kumar & Anr. (The New India ... on 20 September, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 760/2015
SANTOSH SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate
versus
RAMESH KUMAR & ANR. (THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD.) ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shuchi Singh, Advocate
with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey,
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant, then 64 years old, had suffered injuries in a
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 05.11.2008 at about 7:45PM
due to negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-
8SNA-4345, admittedly insured against third party risk with the
second respondent (insurer) for the period in question. On his claim
petition (MACT No.333/09/13) instituted on 17.03.2008, the tribunal
held inquiry and, by judgment dated 22.07.2013, held the first
respondent, the driver of the motorcycle to be responsible for the
accident. The said finding has attained finality as it was not
challenged by any party.
2. The tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.1,07,953/-, fastening the liability on the insurer to pay with interest
@ nine per cent (9%) per annum, the said amount inclusive of
Rs.40,000/- under the non-pecuniary heads of damages collectively
described as pain, suffering, mental shock and trauma, besides
pecuniary damages under various heads including loss of income of
Rs.7,366/-.
3. The claimant was not satisfied as he had led evidence to show
that the injuries suffered in the accident had rendered him permanently
disabled. On his application for review, by order dated 31.05.2014,
the tribunal added Rs.55,245/- to the compensation, it being the loss of
future earnings on account of functional disability assessed to the
extent of 8%.
4. By the appeal at hand, it is contended that since the disability
certificate (Ex.PW-1/2) had shown that the claimant suffered from
post-traumatic stiffness of the right ankle, it having been found to be
permanent impairment to the extent of thirty two per cent (32%) in
relation to the said lower limb, the functional disability should have
been calculated at 32%. It is argued that the injuries suffered not only
fracture in the ankle, but also in the backbone.
5. The submissions of the claimant, in the above regard, do not
impress this court. The injuries may have included those suffered in
the back. But then, such injuries in the back did not add to the
disability factor. The medical opinion clearly relates disability only to
the fractured ankle.
6. Given the fact that the claimant was working as an accountant,
having regard to the description of the disability (stiffness of the right
ankle), the assessment of the tribunal of functional disability at 8% is
found to be just and proper.
7. There is, however, merit in the contention of the claimant about
the non-pecuniary composite sum of Rs.40,000/- being deficient.
Having regard to the fact that the claimant was 64 years old on the
relevant date and his permanent impairment would affect quality of
life even in future, he having undergone surgical procedure more than
once, the subsequent one being to remove the implant that had to be
put in his body, the non-pecuniary damages are increased to
Rs.1,00,000/- under the various composite heads described in the
tribunal judgment. This would result in increase of the award by
Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only). Needless to add, the
enhanced portion of the award shall carry interest as levied by the
tribunal.
8. The insurer (second respondent) is directed to satisfy the
enhanced award with corresponding interest by requisite deposit with
the tribunal within thirty days, making it available to be released to the
appellant/claimant.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
vk
