Delhi High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance ... vs Chander Maitra & Ors. on 20 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 20, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 345/2017
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
Versus
CHANDER MAITRA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Narula,
Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 407/2017
CHANDER MAITRA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Narula,
Advocate
Versus
BHAGWAT SINGH & ORS. (TATA AIG GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Nanadwani, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Impugned Award of 13th January, 2017 grants compensation of
`15,51,000/- with interest @8% per annum to Chander Maitra
(hereinafter referred to as the "Injured"), aged 27 years, on account of
MAC.APP. 407/2017
grievous injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident, which took
place on 8th September, 2015.
2. In the above captioned first appeal, TATA AIG General Insurance
Company Limited (henceforth referred to as the "Insurer") seeks
reduction in the quantum of compensation awarded, whereas in the above
captioned second appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by
Injured-Chander Maitra.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of common impugned judgment,
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. The factual background of this case, as noticed in the
impugned Award, is as under:-
"Vide this judgment I shall dispose of the DAR with
respect to the road accident occurred on 08.09.2015 at
about 02:00 PM at 5th Avenue, Band Road, Gadaipur, New
Delhi 5:16 PM in front of Jain Mandir, Chhattarpur, due to
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL
2CAT 3276 wherein Sh. Chandra Maitra sustained injuries
and a case FIR bearing No.652/15, was registered at PS
Fateh Pur Beri, New Delhi."
4. To render the impugned Award, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") has relied upon evidence of
Injured-Chander Maitra (PW-1) and as per Disability Certificate
(Ex.PW3/A), the Injured had suffered permanent disability of 30% in
relation to his visual disability. On the strength of evidence recorded,
MAC.APP. 407/2017
impugned Award has been rendered. The breakup of compensation
awarded by Tribunal to the Injured is as under:-
1. Medical Expenses on actuals `42,000/-
2. Pain and Suffering `1,00,000/-
3. Special diet (`10,000), `15,000/-
Conveyance (`5,000)
4. Future Loss of income `11,93,400/-
5. Loss of Amenities `2,00,000/-
Total `15,50,400/-
(which is rounded
off to `15,51,000/-)
5. Learned counsel for Insurer assails impugned Award on the ground
that the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the "functional disability" of
the Injured on the basis of Disability Certificate (Ex.PW3/A) and has not
considered the actual disability suffered. It is submitted that the
"functional disability" ought to be assessed at 10%. It is further
submitted that the compensation granted under the heads of „loss of
amenities of life" and "pain and suffering" is exorbitant and it needs to
be reduced.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Injured-Chander Maitra
refutes the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of Insurer and submits that the
quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate.
Enhancement of compensation is sought on the ground that the Tribunal
has erred in not making any addition towards "future prospects" of
Injured and addition of 50% towards "future prospects" ought to be
made. It is submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal
MAC.APP. 407/2017
under the „non pecuniary heads‟ is also inadequate and is required to be
suitably enhanced. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's decision in
Civil Appeal No. 6071/2018 Shashi Chandan Vs. Ramesh Chander &
Anr., rendered on 5th July, 2018.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on
record and the decision cited, I find that the Injured was working as a
Office Boy with M/s Jaskaran Singh and was earning `19,500/- per
month and due to the injuries suffered by him in this accident, he had lost
one eye and vision in the other eye was also affected up to 30%. The
Tribunal has assessed the "functional disability" of Injured at 30%,
whereas Dr. Poonam (PW-3) in her evidence on record has stated that the
vision of Injured in the other eye is 6X6 with glasses and Injured would
not have any problem in doing table work, arranging files etc. and he can
drive and do field work. In the face of afore-referred evidence of Dr.
Poonam (PW-3), the Tribunal was not justified in assessing the
"functional disability" of Injured at 30%. In the considered opinion of
this Court, the "functional disability" of the Injured deserves to be
assessed at 15%. Accordingly, the "loss of earning capacity" of Injured
is re-assessed as under:-
`19,500/- X 12 X 17 X 15/100 = `5,96,700/-
8. As regards grant of "future prospects" in a case of injury is
concerned, Supreme Court in Shashi (Supra), has made addition towards
"future prospects" while relying upon Supreme Court's Constitution
Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Another Bench of Supreme Court while dealing
MAC.APP. 407/2017
with the case of injury in Anant son of Sidheshwar Dukre Vs. Pratap son
of Zhamnnappa Lamzane & Anr. 2018 (10) SCALE 130, has not made
any addition towards "future prospects". It is a matter of record that
Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra),
has not dealt with injury case and therefore, this Court is not inclined to
grant any addition towards "future prospects".
9. With regard to compensation granted under the head of "loss of
amenities of life", I find that the compensation granted under this head is
neither exorbitant nor inadequate and is infact, just and proper.
Compensation granted under the other heads is also adequate. No case for
enhancement of compensation awarded is made out. Accordingly, the
compensation payable to Injured-Chander Maitra is re-assessed as
under:-
1. Medical Expenses on actuals `42,000/-
2. Pain and Suffering `1,00,000/-
3. Special diet (`10,000), `15,000/-
Conveyance (`5,000)
4. Loss of earning capacity `5,96,700/-
5. Loss of Amenities `2,00,000/-
Total `9,53,700/-
10. Consequentially, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to
Injured-Chander Maitra stands reduced from `15,51,000/- to `9,53,700/-.
As far as interest granted by the Tribunal is concerned, 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
MAC.APP. 407/2017
awarded compensation and so, in the instant case, it is directed that the
re-assessed compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum and it be
released forthwith to Injured-Chander Maitra in the manner, as indicated
in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit alongwith excess deposit, be
refunded to the Insurer.
11. With aforesaid modification in the impugned Award, the above
captioned two appeals are disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 407/2017
