Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd. vs Alka Sharma & Ors. on 12 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 12, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 214/2017 & C.M.No. 9057/2017
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Manu Shahalia, Advocate
Versus
ALKA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Respondent No.1 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 2nd March, 2016 grants compensation of
`14,29,561/- with interest @ 9% per annum to respondent-injured-Alka
Sharma, aged 50 years, on account of grievous injury suffered by her in a
vehicular accident, which took place on 12th September, 2014. The facts
as noticed in the impugned Award are as under:-
"Brief facts of the case are that on 12.9.2014 the
petitioner was going from Supreme Court to Delhi High
Court and at about 4:00 PM when she reached in front of
India Gate, Shershah Suri Marg, New Delhi, in the meantime
one Alto car bearing no. UP 21 AU 2310 being driven in
rash and negligent manner by R-1, came from wrong side
and hit the car of the petitioner with great force as a result of
which she suffered severe crushed injuries on her right hand.
The petitioner was taken to RML hospital."
2. To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") has relied upon
evidence of injured- Alka Sharma; Discharge Summary of Sir Ganga
Ram Hosptial (Ex. PW2/2) and Disability Certificate (EX. PW1/1), which
indicates 77% permanent physical disability in relation to right upper
limb. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award of 2nd
March, 2016 has been rendered.
3. Vide order of 8th October, 2016, the Tribunal has modified the
impugned Award and has granted compensation of `32,09,400/- towards
"future loss of income" to the injured. Thereafter, again vide order of 21st
December, 2016, the compensation under this head has been further
modified and reduced to `27,81,480/- as while passing the impugned
Award, the age of injured was inadvertently taken to be 36 years, whereas
she was 50 years on the date of accident.
Thus, the breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal to the injured is
as under:-
1. Medicines and treatment `3,52,391/-
2. Loss of income `2,97,170/-
3. Loss of income on account of `2,00,000/-
disability / amenities of life
4. Pain & Suffering `3,00,000/-
5. Conveyance and Special diet `80,000/-
6. Attendant charges `50,000/-
7. Marriage prospects `50,000/-
8. Disfigurement of body `1,00,000/-
9. Future loss of income `27,81,480/-
Total `42,11,041/-
4. Learned counsel for Insurer assails impugned Award on the ground
that income of the injured has been taken into consideration to assess the
"loss of income", whereas her net income ought to have been considered.
It is next submitted that the functional disability of 30% assessed by the
Tribunal is on the higher side and infact, the functional disability ought to
be 10%. So, it is submitted that the awarded compensation deserves to be
reduced.
5. On the contrary, the injured who is lawyer by profession has
choosen to argue in person and she supports the impugned Award and
maintains that the compensation granted is just and proper and no case for
reduction is made out. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Medical
Board's Report (Ex. PW1/1) to point out that right hand of injured is
dysfunctional with loss of all functions, except hook grasp. It is submitted
by the injured that the income has been rightly taken by the Tribunal in
view of Income Tax Return placed on record. So, it is submitted that no
case for reduction of compensation granted by the Tribunal is made out
and hence, this appeal deserves dismissal.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I find that the Income Tax Return of the year 2014-15 reveals
that the gross income of the injured is `7,13,206/- and the tax deduction
is of `56,963/-. Meaning thereby, that the "net income" of injured is:-
`7,13,206/- minus `56,963/- = `6,56,243/-
7. As regards "functional disability" is concerned, I find that the
Tribunal has assessed it on the lower side. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Arvind Pathak Vs. Parshant Kumar & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine
Del 2675 has assessed the "functional disability" to be 70% in a case
where the permanent disability of the right hand was assessed to be 69%
by the Medical Board of Safdarjung Hosptial, New Delhi. In the face of
afore referred evidence on record, the "future loss of income" due to
disability suffered by injured is reassessed as under:-
`6,56,243/- X 13 X 70/100 = `59,71,811.30
(rounded off to `59,71,811/-)
8. Since no cross-objections have been filed, therefore, "future loss of
income", as determined by the Tribunal is maintained. Compensation
granted under the other heads is also found to be reasonable.
9. In view of above, this Court finds that the compensation granted to
respondent-injured is justified and no case for reduction of compensation
awarded is made out. This appeal and pending application are
accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to forthwith release the
amount of compensation to respondent-injured in terms of impugned
Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2018
r
