Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Bhupesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. on 17 September, 2019
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 17.09.2019
+ MAC.APP. 952/2018
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy & Mr. P. Srinivasan,
Advs.
versus
BHUPESH KUMAR SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.S. Dalal & Mr. Jogender Kumar,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
MAC. APP. 952/2018 & CM No. 44775/2018
1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after examining the
matter and upon instructions from the appellant, he would not like to press
the issue of identity of the vehicle involved in the accident which injured the
claimant. He, however, questions the quantum of compensation awarded by
the impugned order dated 30.07.2018 passed in MACP Petition No.
5288/2016, on the ground that the same is not based upon cogent reasons. It
is his argument that 40% permanent disability suffered by the injured was
taken to be 25% functional disability for the whole body.
2. The Court finds that the injured has sustained: i) 32% disability in
relation to sensorineural hearing loss and ii) 8% disability in relation to post
traumatic stiffness of right hip and knee. The same is evident from the
Disability Certificate (Ex. PW3/1) dated 19.08.2013 issued by the Medical
Board of AIIMS, New Delhi. PW3- Dr. Kapil Sikka, who was one of the
members of Disability Board constituted by AIIMS, testified to the aforesaid
disability of the appellant. He also deposed that the injured had suffered
loss of hearing of both ears, therefore, he would be requiring required a
hearing aid for the rest of his life. PW3 was not cross-examined by the
appellant. It is in these circumstances, the learned Trial Court had
considered the whole body functional disability at 25%. The Court finds no
reasons to interfere with the same.
3. The appellant's main grievance is that the award of Rs. 1.50 lacs
towards 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of general amenities and enjoyment of
life' is on the higher side. The Court notes that the claimant was merely 34
years of age and working at the Indira Gandhi International Airport; the
acuteness of his loss of hearing in the context of his employment would be
far more than what has been awarded in the impugned order. In the
circumstances, the compensation apropos 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of
general amenities and enjoyment of life' is enhanced to Rs. 2.50 lacs.
4. The appeal is disposed-off in the above terms. The statutory amount
of Rs. 25,000/-, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to the claimant,
as costs towards this litigation.
CM APPL. 4919/2019 (By R-1 for release of amount)
5. The claimant has sought release of the entire amount as he has already
expended huge amounts on his treatment. The claimant submits that he has
expended Rs. 6,07,389/- towards his medical treatment and other expenses.
Bills to that effect have been submitted before the learned Tribunal. Since
the compensation awarded is apropos injury suffered by a young person, he
seeks release of the same to reimburse the expenditure and to meet his
already incurred daily expenses and to rehabilitate himself to the optimum
extent possible.
6. In these circumstances, let 50% of the awarded amount, alongwith
interest accrued thereon, be released to the beneficiary of the award within
one week of receipt of copy of this order. The remaining 50% amount shall
be kept in an interest bearing FDRs, of which 50% shall be released to the
claimant after two years and the other 50% after four years.
7. The application stands disposed off accordingly.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019/kk
