Delhi High Court
Harshit Soni vs National Insurance Company Ltd & ... on 16 September, 2019
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 16.09.2019
+ MAC.APP. 892/2016
HARSHIT SONI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K. Verma and Ms. Bobby
Verma, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS.... Respondents
Through: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. The award of compensation dated 23.08.2016 passed by the learned
MACT in MACP No. 50375/2016, is impugned on the ground of
certain errors in it. In the first instance, the date of institution of the
claim petition has been recorded as 17.01.2009 instead of 15.03.2007.
This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the insurance company.
Accordingly the date of institution of the Claim Petition shall be
recorded as 15.03.2007.
2. The next challenge is, that although in para 30 of the award, the Court
has granted Rs. 1,50,000/- towards 'loss of marital prospects' because
of loss of vision in the right eye of the injured victim, but only Rs.
1,00,000/- has been computed in the final amount. The error is
apparent. It is rectified by adding Rs. 50,000/-.
3. The next argument is that although the loss of vision in the right eye
of the injured has resulted in 30% of his loss of vision, the same has
been construed as 20% apropos the whole body. This is erroneous.
The same degree of disfigurement should be construed for the whole
body and the compensation amount should be enhanced on this
account.
4. The Supreme Court in Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited and Anr., (2014) 14 SCC 396, held that
where the permanent disability is upto 30% apropos the whole body,
Rs. 3,00,000/- be granted. In the present case, the assessment for the
whole body is 20%, however, there is explanation as to why the 30%
with respect to the eye has been taken as 20% for the whole body.
Eyes are perhaps the most important organ for a human body. The
loss of vision even partially, can be immensely disadvantageous to the
individual. A young person would not be qualified for the armed
forces or the uniformed forces. In the circumstances, for the loss of
vision construed as 30%, the functional disability shall be equivalent
to 30%. The compensation on this count is enhanced from Rs.
3,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-.
5. It is the appellant's case that the loss of his right eye and the
subsequent requirement of putting an artificial eye in the right eye
socket, is a very evident disfigurement, which would affect his marital
prospects. In the circumstances, on account of 'loss of
disfigurement', the appellant is granted an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-
and for 'loss of marital prospects', the compensation is enhanced from
Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. Hence, the total compensation is
enhanced by Rs. 8,00,000/-.
6. The aforesaid amounts, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 15.03.2007 till its realization, be
deposited before the learned Tribunal, within three weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order, to be released to the
beneficiary(ies) of the Award in terms of the scheme of disbursement
specified therein.
7. The appeal is disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
AB
