Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Tarun Kumar & Ors. on 27 August, 2019
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 27.08.2019
+ MAC.APP. 142/2016 & CM Nos. 5321-22/2016
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A. K. Soni and Mr. Pavan
Kumar, Advocates.
Versus
TARUN KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nikhil Tripathi, Advocate for Mr. Amit
Kumar Pandey, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
CM No. 5322/2016 (for delay)
This application seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned
and the appeal is taken on record.
The application stands disposed-off.
MAC.APP. 142/2016 & CM No. 5321/2016 (for stay)
1. The award of compensation dated 15.09.2015 passed in Suit
No.231/12 is impugned on the ground that the learned Tribunal has
erroneously granted 50% towards 'loss of future prospects' instead of 40%
in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as the injured-victim
would fall in the self-employed category.
2. By an apparent calculation error, the monthly income of the injured-
victim has been enhanced twice over towards 'loss of future prospects'. His
income was assessed at Rs.6,656/- per month, therefore, the annual income
would be Rs.6,656 x 12, on which 40% would be added towards 'loss of
future prospects'.
3. An issue is raised apropos the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- granted
towards medical expenses i.e. for fitment of the prosthetic on the amputated
leg of the injured-victim; his left lower limb has been amputated below the
knee; he was about 21 years of age at the time of the accident; he was in the
prime of his life and no matter what amount of compensation is granted to
him, he would never be able to enjoy his life in the same carefree manner, as
he did prior to his unfortunate incapacitation. One of the objectives of fair
and just compensation would be that the injured be enabled to optimize his
movements and to carry out his normal functions. One step in this direction
would be the fitment of a standard quality prosthetic to his amputated leg.
4. In view of the above, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded to him
in this regard cannot be faulted with. On the contrary, it would be
incumbent upon the insurer to ensure that the prosthetic of high quality is
provided to the injured even if cost is higher than what has been awarded
under this head. The prosthetic shall have a life time warranty.
5. Furthermore, since the injured would not be able to walk long
distances, the Court considers it just that he be provided with a motorized
wheel chair. Let it be so done.
6. The Court would also note that the compensation awarded for 'pain &
suffering' and for 'loss of amenities and enjoyment of life' i.e. Rs.30,000/-
and Rs.50,000/- respectively are also on the lower side. In view of the
constant realization of the lessening of his physical abilities, the corollary
deprivation and anguish, the compensation on aforesaid two counts is
enhanced to Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.
7. Let a fresh computation of the amounts payable to the injured-victim
in terms of the above be furnished by the insurer to him within two weeks
from today. The latter shall deposit the excess amount before the learned
Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order for
disbursal to the beneficiary of the Award in terms of the scheme of
disbursement specified therein. There shall be no interest on the enhanced
amount.
8. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-, alongwith interest accrued
thereon, be refunded to the insurance company.
9. The appeal, alongwith pending application, stands disposed-off in the
above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
AUGUST 27, 2019
sb
