Delhi High Court
Bharti Axa General Insurance ... vs Neelkanth Dey & Ors on 27 September, 2017
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 302/2014
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta for Ms. Suman
Bagga, Advocate
versus
NEELKANTH DEY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Sanjeev
Sharma and Ms. Malika Sharma, Advocates
for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On the accident claim case (petition no.138/12) instituted by the
first respondent on 09.07.2012, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Tribunal), by judgment dated 27.11.2013, granted compensation in
the total sum of Rs.46,49,000/- and has fastened the liability on the
appellant / insurance company (insurer), it concededly being the
insurer against third party risk in respect of the motor vehicle
described as Honda City car bearing registration no.DL-3C-BE-4508
on account of negligent driving of which by the second respondent the
accident is stated to have occurred, the vehicle being registered in the
name of the third respondent.
2. The insurer by the present appeal questions the award primarily
assailing the calculation of Rs.30,77,000/- as future loss of income on
the basis of finding that the claimant has been rendered functionally
disabled to the extent of 100%. It appears the claimant had relied on
the disability certificate (Ex. PW1/3) issued by a board of doctors of
Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital. Ms. Anshu Goel (PW-2), a
member of the said medical board also appeared in the course of
inquiry. In addition to such evidence, the claimant relied on his own
testimony, he appearing as PW-3, besides that of his attorney
Shubhankar Dey (PW-1).
3. On perusal of the evidence of all the three witnesses, this court
finds that the medical condition on account of which the claimant has
been found to be disabled to such an extent has not been elaborated. It
is noted that the disability certificate itself indicted that it was not final
opinion as the case would require further re-evaluation. The disability
certificate, at best, is an opinion of medical experts. But, in order to
accept such opinion, and to act upon it to reach findings on facts
concerning the functional disability, the tribunal should have elicited
further information particularly about the nature and effect of the
injuries suffered in the accident. The evidence led is found to be
deficient in this context.
4. The learned counsel for the claimant fairly conceded at the
hearing that the evidence could have been more elaborate. Thus, he
requests that while the appeal of the insurance company may be
allowed, the matter may be remitted to the tribunal so that the claimant
may lead further and more clear evidence.
5. For the above reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside. The
claim case is remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry in accordance
with law so as to adjudicate on the computation of compensation
afresh. For such purposes, the claimant will be entitled to lead further
evidence followed by opportunity being given to the contesting parties
to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any. The parties shall appear before the
tribunal on 30.10.2017.
6. In view of the above, it will be advisable that the tribunal also
refers the claimant for re-evaluation of his disability by a board of
doctors.
7. By order dated 31.03.2014, the insurance company had been
directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest
with the Registrar General of this court within the period specified and
from out of such deposit, sixty percent (60%) was allowed to be
released to the claimants. The amount already released to the
claimants will be liable to be adjusted against the fresh award that is
expected to be passed on conclusion of further inquiry. Ordered
accordingly. The balance lying with the Registry shall presently be
refunded to the insurance company with accrued interest.
8. The statutory amount shall also be refunded to the insurance
company.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
yg
