Delhi High Court
Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd. vs Dil Bagh Singh And Ors. on 10 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 10, 2018
+ MAC.APP.135/2013
RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate
Versus
DIL BAGH SINGH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate for
respondent No.1
Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for
respondent No.3
+ MAC.APP.654/2013
DIL BAGH SINGH AND ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate
Versus
RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO.LTD. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
1. Impugned Award of 17th December, 2012 grants compensation of
`19,24,580/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum to respondent/injured-Dil
Bagh Singh, aged 35 years, on account of grievous injury suffered by him
in a vehicular accident, which took place on 16th February, 2008. The
above-captioned first appeal is by the Insurer to seek reduction of the
quantum of compensation granted, whereas in the above-captioned
second appeal, Injured seeks enhancement in the quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. The facts, as noticed in the impugned Award, are as under:-
"On 16.02.2008 at about 10:00 p.m, Dil Bagh Singh
was sleeping on one side of the road at Azadpur Fruit
Mandi, near shed No. 9, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. Suddenly, a
truck bearing registration No. HR38-J-6381 being driven by
R1 rashly, negligently and at a very fast speed without
taking necessary precautions and without blowing horn
violently hit the petitioner with great force and ran over
both his legs. Petitioner was removed to BJRM Hospital,
where he was given first aid. Thereafter, he was removed to
Hindu Rao Hospital, where he remained hospitalised till
10.03.2008. The injuries sustained by the petitioner or
having not healed, he is not able to do any work."
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above-
captioned appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
4. To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") has relied upon
evidence of injured and Dr.Paramjit Singh and as per evidence of this
witness, injured had sustained 100% permanent disability in relation to
whole body. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has
been rendered. The breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal is as
under:-
Sl. Compensation under various heads
Amount
No. awarded
1. Medical Treatment Expenses Rs.10,783/-
2. Loss of Earning Capacity Rs. 9,06,797/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 50,000/-
4. Purchase of Artificial Limb Rs. 4,00,000/-
5. Loss of Amenities in Life & Rs. 2,00,000/-
Disfigurement
6. Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
7. Conveyance Rs. 1,92,000/-
8. Special Diet Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 19,24,580/-
5. Learned counsel for Insurer assails impugned Award on the ground
that quantum of compensation granted is on the higher side and it needs
to be suitably reduced. Learned counsel for Insurer submits that the
conveyance charges of `1,92,000/- have been awarded by the Tribunal
without any proof of conveyance expenses being incurred. It is next
submitted that the quantum of compensation under the head of „loss of
earning capacity‟ is also on the higher side. Thus, it is submitted that the
quantum of compensation deserves to be reduced. Recovery rights are
sought by Insurer's counsel on the ground that the driver of the truck in
question was not having valid driving licence on the day of the accident.
To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to appellant's witness-
R3W1, who has stated in his evidence that the driving licence of the
driver of the insured vehicle has expired on 8 th February, 2008 and the
accident in question had taken place on 16th February, 2008. It is pointed
out that as per the evidence of this witness, Notice under Order 12 Rule 8
of CPC was sent to driver and owner of the insured vehicle to produce the
driving licence as well as the permit of the driver of the insured vehicle,
but despite notice, neither the driving licence nor the permit was
produced. Thus, recovery rights are claimed against the owner and driver
of the insured vehicle.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for Injured submits that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and it needs to be
enhanced. Enhancement of compensation is sought on the ground that
alongwith cross-objections, copy of the driving licence of the injured has
been placed on record and so, minimum wages of a skilled workman
should be the basis to assess the compensation. It is submitted by learned
counsel for Injured that in light of additional evidence of Anshul Sengar,
Senior Associate, Otto Bock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., the cost of
artificial limb is `5,24,000/- and its life is 5 to 6 years and the
maintenance expenses are between `25,000/- to `30,000/- per year. So, it
is submitted that the quantum of compensation granted to Injured needs
to be suitably enhanced.
7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for Injured that in view of
Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, addition
towards „future prospects‟ ought to be 40% and not 30% as awarded by
the Tribunal. To submit so, reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's
decision in Mangla Ram v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.,
(2018) 5 SCC 656. It is pointed out that the compensation granted under
the head of „pain and suffering‟ also needs to be substantially enhanced.
Lastly, it is submitted that the interest on the awarded amount ought to be
9% per annum and not 7.5% per annum.
8. On behalf of Owner of the Insured vehicle in question, it is
submitted that the Tribunal has rightly declined recovery rights to Insurer
in view of Proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decisions cited, I find that the „conveyance charges‟ are
not only for the past, but are granted keeping in view the future needs
also and the Tribunal has computed the „conveyance charges‟ while
relying upon decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Harmohinder Singh v. Mangla Prasad & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del
4426. As such, I find that the „conveyance charges‟ granted by the
Tribunal are adequate and no case for its reduction is made out.
10. Compensation on account of „loss of earning capacity‟ has been
granted by the Tribunal on minimum wages of an unskilled worker and
addition of 30% towards „future prospects‟ has been made by the
Tribunal to grant compensation of `9,06,797/- under this head. I find that
the compensation granted under this head is not on higher side. Rather it
is inadequate, as I find that copy of driving licence of Injured is on record
and so, it cannot be said that the Injured is an unskilled person.
Accordingly, while applying the minimum wages of a skilled worker,
addition of 40% towards „future prospects‟ has to be made in view of
Supreme Court's decision in Mangla Ram (supra). Thus, „loss of
dependency‟ is reassessed as under: -
`4057/- per month + 40% X 12 X 16= `10,90,521/-
11. Regarding cost of artificial limb, I find that the Tribunal has relied
upon decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Harmohinder Singh
(supra) to grant compensation under this head. The Injured in his appeal
has led additional evidence of Anshul Sengar from Otto Bock Healthcare
India Pvt. Ltd., and as per this witness, the Injured was examined by a
Prosthetist and Orthotist and his evidence remained unchallenged.
12. In view afore-referred unrebutted additional evidence, the cost of
artificial limbs is `5,24,000/- and its life is 5 to 6 years and thereafter,
new prosthesis has to be purchased and the annual maintenance
expenditure of the artificial limbs is between `25,000/- to `30,000/- per
year. The Injured was 35 years in the year 2012. While taking the life
expectancy to be 66 years, it is reasonable to assume that the replacement
of artificial limbs is likely to take place 4 or 5 times during the life-time
of Injured. In the face of aforesaid additional evidence on record, a sum
of `26 lacs is granted to enable the Injured to obtain artificial limbs with
periodical replacements and a sum of `1,80,000/- is also granted to
Injured to meet the annual maintenance expenditure of the artificial
limbs. In the first instance, Insurer shall directly release a sum of `5.24
lacs for obtaining artificial limbs and `1,80,000/- (Rs.30,000/- per year X
6 years) to meet the annual maintenance expenditure of the artificial
limbs to Otto Bock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. upon Injured furnishing the
requisite documents. Likewise, for obtaining new prosthesis periodically,
if advised by doctors in future, `5.24 lacs with `1,80,000/- towards
annual maintenance expenditure of the artificial limbs be directly released
to Otto Bock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. or the Hospital/Agency from
where the artificial limbs are procured, subject to Injured furnishing the
requisite documents.
13. So far as grant of recovery rights to Insurer are concerned, I find
that the driving licence of the driver of insured vehicle had expired on 8th
February, 2008 and the accident in question had taken place on 16 th
February, 2008. As per Proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, even after the expiry of the driving licence, it would remain
effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry. The purport of this
Proviso is to enable such drivers to get it renewed within 30 days. So,
recovery rights cannot be granted to Insurer as the accident in question
had taken place during the period of 30 days after the expiry of the
driving licence in question. Compensation of `1.5 lacs granted by the
Tribunal under the head of „pain and suffering‟ appears to be justified in
the facts and circumstances of this case and is thus maintained. The
Tribunal has granted `50,000/- towards „attendant charges‟, which are
not required to be interfered with, as adequate cost for obtaining of
artificial limbs is being awarded to Injured. The compensation granted
under other heads is found to be justified and is thus maintained.
14. As far as interest granted by the Tribunal is concerned, I find that a
Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in a recent decision of Jagdish v.
Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 has granted interest @ 9% per
annum on the awarded compensation and so, appellant is also entitled to
interest @ 9% per annum.
15. In view of aforesaid, the compensation payable to Injured is
reassessed as under: -
Sl. Compensation under various heads Amount awarded
No.
1. Medical Treatment Expenses `10,783/-
2. Loss of Earning Capacity ` 10,90,521/-
3. Attendant Charges ` 50,000/-
4. Cost of Artificial Limb and annual `5,24,000/- +
maintenance expenditure `1,80,000/- =
` 7,04,000/-
5. Loss of Amenities in Life & ` 2,00,000/-
Disfigurement
6. Pain and Suffering ` 1,50,000/-
7. Conveyance ` 1,92,000/-
8. Special Diet ` 15,000/-
Total ` 24,12,304/-
16. Consequentially, the compensation awarded is enhanced from
`19,24,580/- to `24,12,304/-. The enhanced compensation be deposited
by Insurer with the Tribunal within four weeks from today. The re-
assessed compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum and it be
disbursed as per this judgment in the ratio and manner as indicated in the
impugned Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurer.
17. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two appeals are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 10, 2018
s
