Delhi High Court
Bharti Axa General Insurance Co ... vs Naresh Khanna & Ors. on 5 August, 2019
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on:05.08.2019
+ MAC.APP. 707/2019 & CM Nos.35046-47/2019
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate.
Versus
NARESH KHANNA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation on two grounds.
Firstly, that the computation of loss of income is based on three Income Tax
Returns (ITRs) for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 filed
by the injured - respondent. The ITRs of first two years show an income of
Rs.2.27 lacs and Rs.2.97 lacs respectively, on which tax was paid. The third
ITR shows an income of Rs.4,08,940/-. An Officer from the Income Tax
Office was examined and he testified that the aforesaid three ITRs were
correct.
2. In the circumstances, the learned Tribunal found nothing to disregard
the aforesaid ITRs. It rightly took into consideration the last ITR for the
assessment year 2018-19 filed by the injured while computing the loss of
income. Additionally, the Court would note that the accident happened on
05.06.2018 and the tax returns were filed on 06.07.2018, i.e. exactly a month
after the accident. For a person, who had been so seriously injured as to
suffer permanent disability in his right lower limb upto 25%, would hardly
have had the time to cook up his account books so to enhance his probable
claim. He would have obviously been recuperating and restricted to bed
immediately after the accident, for many weeks. Therefore, the Court finds
no reason to suspect the ITRs filed. All it shows is that the injured is a
regular tax payer and has filed his returns within time. There is no merit in
the argument. It is accordingly dismissed.
3. The second argument is that 25% physical disability apropos his right
lower limb has been erroneously taken as 25% functional disability for the
whole body by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant
argues that functional disability ought to be lesser than physical disability.
However, no reason has been offered as to why it should be lesser than what
has been considered by the learned Tribunal.
4. The Court would note that the impugned order has taken into
consideration various judgments in which, in the peculiar circumstances of
each case, functional disability was considered equal to the physical
disability. The injured is a second-hand car salesman, which obviously
would require regular movement for his work and he would not have been
desk-bound. Therefore, the physical disability of 25% in his right lower
limb has been rightly considered as functional disability to the extent of 25%
for the whole body. Therefore, the second argument too is untenable and is
rejected.
5. The appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. The
pending applications also stand dismissed.
6. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest accrued
thereon be deposited in the 'AASRA' Fund.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
AUGUST 05, 2019
sb
