Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Pawan Sehgal & Ors on 16 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 16, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 384/2015 & CM 7629/2015
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K Ray and Ms. Neetika
Chaturvedi, Advocates
versus
PAWAN SEHGAL & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Garg and Ms. Pankhi
Harmilapi, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West-01, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the Tribunal) vide impugned Award of 19th January, 2015
grants compensation of `47,81,187/- to first respondent, who was
grievously injured in a vehicular accident on 29th April, 2010. The facts,
as noted in impugned Award, are as under: -
"Brief facts of the case of petitioner is that on
29/04/2010 at about 6.15 a.m. was travelling in his Car
bearing No. HR-01S7833 and when he reached at near
Metro Station, Tilak Nagar, Delhi and when the petitioner
opened the door of his car to came out, suddenly the
offending vehicle No. PB10-B-1513(Bolero Pickup Van)
which was driven by its driver/respondent No. 1 in rash and
negligent manner hit the petitioner. Resultantly, the
petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. In total, the
petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation on
account of the injuries sustained by injured in the accident."
2. The breakup of the compensation granted by the Tribunal is as
under: -
" The total compensation is assessed as under:-
Treatment expenses: ` 9,87,268/-
Compensation for Future treatment
& implantation ` 3,60,000/-
Pain and sufferings: ` 50,000/-
Conveyance & special diet: ` 20,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period ` 3,83,112/-
Compensation on account of disability: ` 29,30,807/-
Compensation on account of loss of
amenities of life and enjoyment of life ` 50,000/-
Total: ` 47,81,187/- "
3. First respondent was aged 29 years on the day of accident and by
applying multiplier of 17, „loss of earning capacity‟ has been assessed at
`29,30,806.8/-, which has been rounded off to `29,30,807/- while taking
the income of respondent-Injured at `63,852/- per month. Towards
„future prospects‟, 50% has been added and thereafter, the „loss of
earning capacity‟ has been assessed while taking the permanent disability
suffered to be 27% and the functional disability at 13%.
4. The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-Insurer is on the ground that no addition towards „loss of future
earnings‟ is to be made and the „conveyance allowance‟ awarded is not
justified. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer further submits that the
yearly job bonus has been wrongly taken into consideration and that
respondent-Injured had received salary for the period he had remained
hospitalized and so, the „loss of income‟ during treatment period has been
wrongly granted. It is submitted that as per the evidence of Record-
Keeper from the concerned hospital, `2 lacs was paid by Medi-Claim
Insurance and so, the medical expenses assessed ought to be reduced by
`2 lacs. So, it is submitted that the compensation assessed by the
Tribunal ought to be suitably reduced.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Injured submits
that leave encashment was adjusted to pay the salary for period of
hospitalization and in view of decision in Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd. &
Ors., 2016 (2) AD (Delhi) 359, the compensation under the head of
„future loss of earning‟ is payable to respondent-Injured. Learned
counsel for respondent-Injured thus submits that no case for reduction of
quantum of compensation is made out.
6. In rebuttal, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer
that the Tribunal has taken the income of respondent-Injured as `63,852/-
i.e. the salary before the accident and after the accident, the annual
package of respondent-Injured was `17.63 lacs per annum w.e.f. 3rd July,
2012. That is to say, `1,46,916/- per month.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that the evidence regarding „loss of
future prospects‟ is lacking and so, reliance placed upon decision in Sunil
Kumar (supra) is of no avail to the case of respondent-Injured. As such,
addition of 50% made by the Tribunal towards „future prospects‟ is
disallowed and compensation granted under the head of 'loss of earning
capacity‟ is reassessed at `16,93,355/- (`63,852/-X 12 X 17 X 13/100).
So far as grant of „conveyance allowance‟, „treatment expenses‟ and the
adjustment of yearly job bonus or the deduction of `2 lacs paid by the
Medi-Claim Insurer is concerned, I find that there is no effective cross-
examination of the concerned witnesses on these aspects and therefore,
no case for reduction of compensation under these heads is made out.
8. In view of the aforesaid, compensation payable to respondent-
Injured is reassessed as under: -
Treatment expenses: ` 9,87,268/-
Compensation for Future treatment
& implantation ` 3,60,000/-
Pain and sufferings: ` 50,000/-
Conveyance & special diet: ` 20,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period ` 3,83,112/-
Compensation on account of disability: ` 16,93,355/-
Compensation on account of loss of
amenities of life and enjoyment of life ` 50,000/-
Total: ` 35,43,735/-
9. In light of aforesaid, compensation granted by the Tribunal to
respondent-Injured is reduced from `47,81,187/- to `35,43,735/-.
Impugned Award is accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent. The re-
assessed compensation shall carry the interest @ 9% per annum and it
shall be disbursed in the manner and ratio as indicated in the impugned
Award. Appellant-Insurer shall deposit the modified compensation in
terms of this judgment within a period of four weeks from today with the
Registry of this Court and thereupon, it be released forthwith to
respondent-Injured in the manner indicated in the impugned Award.
Subject to appellant-Insurer depositing the modified compensation in
terms of this judgment, statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant-
Insurer, as per Rules.
10. With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 16, 2018
s
