Delhi High Court
Navdeep Singh vs Lakhvinder Singh & Ors. (M/S ... on 7 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 07, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 971/2016
NAVDEEP SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Varun Sarin and Mr.
Shailendra Singh, Advocates
Versus
LAKHVINDER SINGH & ORS. (M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO LTD) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
Insurer
+ MAC.APP. 1077/2016
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
Versus
NAVDEEP SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Varun Sarin and Mr.
Shailendra Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 25th July, 2016 grants compensation of
`65,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to injured- Navdeep Singh,
aged 19 years, on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in a
vehicular accident, which took place on 13th August, 2010.
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
2. In the above captioned first appeal, Injured seeks enhancement in
quantum of compensation awarded, whereas in the above captioned
second appeal, Insurer seeks reduction in the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Since both the appeals arise out of common
impugned Award, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided
by this common judgment.
3. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
Award, is as under:-
"Brief facts of the case are that on 13.08.2010 at about
04:15 pm, injured Navdeep Singh was coming from Nanakmata
to his native village by motorcycle i.e. Unicon Honda bearing
number U.K.-06-P-9868. When he reached at Chika Ghat
suddenly offending vehicle i.e. TATA Security Van Axix Bank
Sitarganj bearing number U.K.-04-CA-1482 being driven by
respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and was
coming from opposite side and hit the injured due to the
forceful impact, he fell down on the road and sustained injury
on all over his body. Later on he was shifted to Barailey
Hospital."
4. To render the impugned Award, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") has relied upon evidence of
Injured and as per Disability Certificate of 15th September, 2014, the
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
injured had suffered permanent disability of 100% with respect to his
whole body. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has
been rendered. The breakup of compensation awarded to Injured by
Tribunal is as under:-
Loss for medical expenses `50,00,000/-
Compensation for pain and suffering `50,000/-
Compensation for special diet and `1,50,000/-
conveyance
Loss of future earning capacity/future `5,00,000/-
income
Compensation for loss of amenities and `1,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
Attendant charges `5,00,000/-
Compensation for disfigurement `20,000/-
Loss of income during treatment `2,00,000/-
Total `65,20,000/-
5. Learned counsel for Injured seeks enhancement in the quantum of
compensation awarded on the ground that the potential income of injured
has not been taken into consideration. Injured's counsel submits that
Injured was a student of first year of B.Com and had a bright future and
had potential to earn `20,000/- p.m. Counsel for Injured relies upon a
decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Kalpana Mishra & Ors. 2012 IX AD (Delhi) 407 to point out
that addition towards "future prospects" ought to have been made and
instead of lump-sum compensation under the head of "loss of future
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
income", the Tribunal ought to have assessed it by applying appropriate
multiplier.
6. Attention of this Court has been also drawn to additional evidence
of father of Injured- Balwinder Singh (AW-1); Simran Joshan (AW-2),
sister of the Injured; Dr. Virender (AW-3) and Attendant Sonu Singh (AW-
4). It is pointed out that father of Injured (AW-1) has proved on record the
Mark-Sheet of the Injured, regarding his passing B.Com first year. He has
also deposed in respect of estimate for electronic bed, special mattress for
that bed and electric wheel chair. It is further pointed out that Sister (AW-
2) of Injured has deposed in respect of photographs (Ex.AW-1/9 colly) to
indicate present medical condition of Injured. It is also pointed out that
Dr. Virender (AW-3) has proved on record a Certificate (Ex.AW3/A)
regarding future medical treatment required by the Injured. It is urged that
Sonu Singh (AW-4), who is the Attendant of Injured, has deposed that he
has been engaged by the family of Injured at `30,000/- per month to take
care of Injured and to give him physiotherapy. On the strength of afore-
referred additional evidence on record, enhancement of compensation is
sought by Counsel for Injured.
7. On the contrary, counsel for Insurer challenges the impugned
Award on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in not holding that the
accident in question took place due to contributory negligence of the
Injured, who was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently. On the
quantum of compensation aspect, it is submitted by counsel for Insurer
that compensation awarded to the Injured is exorbitant and it needs to be
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
suitably reduced. It is urged that Disability Certificate of 15th September,
2014, medical bills etc. are not duly proved on record and so, no case is
made out to enhance the compensation on the basis of additional evidence
led. Nothing else is urged by either side.
8. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that the instant case is not of
contributory negligence. Apparently, negligence is of the driver of the
insured vehicle in question. On the quantum aspect, I find that the
Disability Certificate of 15th September, 2014 has come on record under
the orders of the Court and so, it has been rightly relied upon by the
Tribunal. The evidence of father of the Injured (AW-1) regarding the
medical bills is unassailable. In the face of medical bills on record, the
Tribunal was justified in granting medical expenses of `50,00,000/-. By
way of additional evidence, father (AW-1) of the Injured, has placed on
record medical bills (Ex.AW1/3 colly) of `2,55,320/- regarding medical
expenses incurred by the Injured during pendency of this appeal. This
Court finds that in addition to the medical expenses already incurred,
Injured is also entitled to additional medical expenses of `2,55,320/-,
which he had incurred during the pendency of this appeal.
9. On the day of the accident, the Injured was first year student of
B.Com. According to his marks-sheet, he was an average student and was
aged about 19 years. Under the head of "loss of future earning capacity/
future income" the Tribunal has granted lump-sum amount of `5,00,000/-
which is inadequate. The minimum wages of a Graduate in the year 2010
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
were `7,020/-. While dealing with a similar case of 100% permanent
disability, Supreme Court in V.Mekala Vs. M. Malathi & Anr. 2014 (5)
SCALE 772 has assessed notional income of a student as `10,000/-. In
view thereof, it is deemed appropriate to assess the income of the Injured
at `10,000/- p.m. Hence, the "loss of future earning capacity" of Injured
is reassessed as under:-
`10,000/- X 12 X 18 X 140/100 = `30,24,000/-
10. The Tribunal has erred in granting compensation of `2,00,000/-
under the head "loss of income during treatment" because the Injured
was still a student on the day of accident. Hence, the compensation
granted under this head is disallowed.
11. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the non-
pecuniary heads, appears to be on the lower side and is required to be
suitably enhanced in light of additional evidence led by the Injured. The
Tribunal has granted compensation of `5,00,000/- under the head
"attendant charges". In the face of additional evidence of Sonu Singh
(AW-4) on record, "attendant charges" which includes physiotherapy as
well, is re-assessed at `30,000/- p.m. Considering the medical condition
of the Injured, it can be said without hesitation that the Injured requires an
Attendant for his day to day survival. So, "attendant charges" already
incurred are enhanced from `5,00,000/- to `14,00,000/-.
12. The compensation of `1,50,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the
head "special diet and conveyance" is found to be reasonable and is
hence maintained. So far as compensation under the head "pain and
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
sufferings" is concerned, considering the nature of injuries suffered by
the Injured, I find it to be wholly inadequate. So, the compensation
awarded to Injured under the head "pain and sufferings" is enhanced
from `50,000/- to `3,00,000/-. This Court finds that the compensation of
`1,00,000/- awarded to Injured under the head "loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life" is meager. In the light of decision of this Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Menka Lidhoo & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 7658, it is accordingly enhanced from `1,00,000/- to `3,50,000/-. The
compensation of `20,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head
"disfigurement" is pathetically low. Hence, compensation under the head
"disfigurement" is appropriately increased from `20,000/- to `2,00,000/-.
13. In the light of additional evidence led by the Injured and keeping in
view his present medical condition evidenced from his photographs on
record, I find that he is entitled to an electronic bed, special mattress and
an electronic wheel chair. As per Quotation (EX. AW1/7), the estimated
cost of electronic bed, special mattress and an electronic wheel chair is
`2,39,030/-. It is accordingly directed that Insurer shall ensure that an
electronic bed, special mattress and wheel chair is promptly provided to
Injured and its cost/ expenses shall be borne by Insurer in terms of
Quotation (Ex. AW1/7) or at the current market price along with
applicable taxes. It is made clear that the cost of these items shall not
form part of payable compensation to the Injured but the cost/ expense of
purchasing electronic bed, special mattress and electronic wheel chair
shall be directly disbursed by Insurer to the supplier of these items.
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
Needful be done within twelve weeks. In case any repair or replacement
charges are incurred in respect of electronic bed, special mattress and
electronic wheel chair, the same shall be borne by Insurer upon
submission of requisite documents on behalf of Injured. Needless to say
the repair/ replacement charges would be directly remitted by the Insurer
to the supplier. If present medical condition of Injured necessitates any
surgical intervention etc, its costs would be also borne by the Insurer by
providing cashless facility.
14. In view of Certificate of 15th November, 2016 (Ex.AW3/A), future
medical expenses of the injured are assessed at `20,000/- p.m. Judicial
notice can be taken of the research literature which clearly indicates that
life expectancy in cases of quadriplegia significantly reduces. The
magnitude of the reduction depends on level and grade. In view thereof, it
is deemed appropriate to adopt a course where the Injured is provided
good treatment and public money is also not wasted. Taking the life
expectancy of Injured to be 50 years, the "future medical expenses" are
assessed as under:-
`20,000 X 12 X 23 = `55,20,000/-
15. The compensation of `55,20,000/- awarded under the head "future
medical expenses" shall not form part of payable compensation to the
Injured and will not be disbursed to him. It be invested into fixed deposit
receipt by Insurer in the name of father of Injured in a nationalized bank
for a period of six months, with automatic renewal. On production of
medical documents/prescriptions and bills, affidavit of "life certificate",
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
expenses for physiotherapy, if so prescribed by doctor and Receipt for
"attendant charges" and "conveyance bills", out of awarded
compensation of `55,20,000/-, periodical release on six months basis be
made by Insurer to father of Injured, for his future medical treatment and
survival.
16. This Court finds that the Injured was unmarried when this accident
had taken place and the Tribunal has erred in not granting compensation
under the head "loss of marriage prospects" to Injured. In the light of
evidence on record, the Injured is granted compensation of `3,00,000/-
under the head "loss of marriage prospects".
17. Accordingly, the compensation granted to Injured is reassessed as
under:-
Medical expenses `50,00,000/-
Additional medical bills `2,55,320/-
Compensation for pain and suffering `3,00,000/-
Compensation for special diet and `1,50,000/-
conveyance
Loss of earning capacity `30,24,000/-
Compensation for loss of amenities and `3,50,000/-
enjoyment of life
Attendant charges `14,00,000/-
Compensation for disfigurement `2,00,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects `3,00,000/-
Total `1,09,79,320/-
18. Consequentially, the compensation amount payable to Injured
stands enhanced from `65,20,000/- to `1,09,79,320/-. In addition, the
Injured shall also be entitled to compensation of `55,20,000/- under the
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
head "future medical expenses", which shall be periodically disbursed in
the manner already indicated above. However, electronic bed, special
mattress and electronic wheel chair with estimated cost of `2,39,030/- or
current market price with applicable taxes be provided by Insurer to
Injured in the manner already indicated herein above. The enhanced
compensation be deposited by Insurer with the Tribunal within eight
weeks from today. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 9%
per annum. The awarded compensation be disbursed in the manner as
indicated in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded
to Insurer.
19. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two appeals are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 1077/2016
