Delhi High Court
Pushpa Devi vs Puran Singh & Ors on 9 March, 2018
$~10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 9th March, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 174/2011
PUSHPA DEVI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Vinay
Kumar & Mr. Ashish Arya,
Advs.
versus
PURAN SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman &
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advs. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was the claimant before the motor accident
claims tribunal (suit No. 663/2003) instituted on 17.11.2003 seeking
compensation for injuries sustained and permanent disability
consequently suffered on account of motor vehicular accident that
took place on 05.07.2003 at about 5.45 a.m. involving collision
between motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 7SAA 3391 (the
motorcycle) on the pillion of which she was riding on one hand and
truck bearing registration No. HR 55A 2184 (the truck), on the other,
the truck concededly insured against third party risk with the third
respondent (insurer). The case was set up on the ground that the
claimant was moving on the pillion of the motorcycle driven by her
brother-in-law, the said vehicle having been struck against by the
truck which had come in a rash or negligent manner. The tribunal put
the case to inquiry and on the basis of evidence adduced returned
finding affirming the case for compensation on account of fault of the
truck driver. It awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.
1,98,328/- in favour of the claimant/appellant directing the insurer to
pay the said amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition. The amount was calculated thus:-
S.No. Heads Compensation
1. Treatment expenses Rs. 82,328/-
2. Pain and sufferings and Loss of Rs. 15,000/-
amenities of life
3. Special diet & conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
4. Compensation on account of Rs. 96,000/-
disability
Total Rs. 1,98,328/-
2. Aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded, the
present appeal was filed. It was not diligently prosecuted and came to
be dismissed in default for want of prosecution by order dated
23.08.2013. The application for restoration was submitted but again
filed with delay and upon being returned on objections re-filed even
with further delay of 586 days. The appeal was eventually restored by
order dated 30.01.2018.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the claimant and also for
the insurer, this Court finds the grievance as to under-assessment of
compensation to be correct. The claimant was about 32 years old when
the accident had occurred. She had suffered degloving injury in the
left lower limb besides fracture of the left tibia bone which mercifully
re-united. Nonetheless, the loss of muscle has resulted in she being
rendered permanently disabled, the physical impairment having been
assessed to be 40% as per the disability certificate dated 10.02.2006
issued by board of doctors of Safdarjung Hospital of Govt. of India
(page 22 of the paper book).
4. In above facts and circumstances while the conclusion of the
tribunal about the extent of disability to be 40% is correct, error in
computation of compensation for loss of income due to disability has
crept in due to the assumption that the claimant's income be taken as
Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It appears, the tribunal has gone by the
prescription in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. The present case is under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. The calculation of loss of income due to disability should
have been made with the help of minimum wages of Rs. 2783.90 as
payable on the relevant date to an unskilled worker, there being
nothing on record to show any educational or trade qualifications of
the claimant. It may be added that in computing the loss of future
income due to disability, the element of future prospects to the extent
of 40% will have to be added. [see judgment of the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C)
25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Ors.,]. Thus, the loss of income due to permanent disability in future is
computed with the multiplier of 16 as (2783.9 x 140 ÷ 100 x 40 ÷ 100
x 12 x 16) Rs, 2,99,325, rounded of to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
5. The accident had occurred on 05.07.2003 and the record of
treatment as submitted before the tribunal at the time of inquiry
reveals that the appellant had remained unfit unable to pursue normal
activity, being under continued treatment till March, 2005 and, thus,
for a period of three years. In these circumstances, the loss of income
for a period of three years during the period of treatment will also
have to be added. This component is calculated as (2783.9 x 12 x 3)
Rs. 1,00,220/-.
6. While the award under the head of special diet and conveyance
at Rs. 5,000/- is found to be correct, given the period to which the case
relates, the composite award of Rs. 15,000/-under the common head of
pain & suffering and loss of amenities of life is found to be deficient.
Thus, an amount of Rs. 75,000/- each shall be added on account of
pain & suffering on one hand and loss of amenities of life on the other.
7. Putting together all the heads including treatment expenses (Rs.
82,328/-), the total compensation comes to (3,00,000+ 1,00,220 +
5,000 + 75,000 + 75,000 + 82,328) Rs. 6,37,548/-, rounded off to Rs.
6,38,000/-. The award stands modified accordingly.
8. Following the consistent view taken by this Court, the rate of
interest is increased to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization. [see judgment dated 22.02.2016 in MAC.APP.
165/2011 Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors.]. The
interest shall be leviable on the enhanced portion of the award from
the date of filing of the petition till payment excluding the period
23.08.2013 to 07.08.2015.
9. The insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced award by
requisite deposit with the tribunal within 30 days hereof. Upon such
deposit being made, the tribunal shall release the amount to the
claimant in the form of interest bearing fixed deposit receipt in a
nationalized bank initially for a period of seven years with right to
draw periodic interest.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
11. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MARCH 09, 2018
nk
