Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Mohd Madin @ Nadeem & Ors on 6 February, 2020
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 06th February, 2020
+ MAC.APP. 638/2015 & CM APPL.14294/2015
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Arun Yadav, Advocate
versus
MOHD MADIN @ NADEEM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Umesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.5,19,576/- awarded to respondent No.1.
2. On 16th December, 2009, the respondent No.1 was driving his motor
cycle when he was hit by offending truck bearing No. HR-55-H-7097 which
resulted in grievous injuries and 30% visual disability.
3. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.20,000/- towards disfiguration/shortening of life span, Rs.11,859/-
towards loss of income, Rs.3,84,232/- towards loss of future income due to
permanent disability, Rs.20,000/- towards salary of attendant, Rs.6,000/-
towards special diet, Rs.6,000/- towards conveyance, Rs.1,485/- towards
medical bills and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges. Total compensation
awarded to is Rs.5,19,576/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that
the Claims Tribunal has taken 50% future prospects while computing the
loss of income whereas the future prospects of 40% should have been taking
into consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks reduction of the
award amount to the extent of Rs.25,615/-.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 urged at the time of the hearing
that the future prospects have been rightly taken into consideration. It is
further submitted that the compensation for pain and suffering has been
awarded on a lower side. It is further submitted that no compensation has
been awarded for loss of amenities of life.
6. There is merit in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for both
the parties. However, no deduction is warranted in the facts and
circumstances of this case considering that the reduction due to decrease in
the future prospects would neutralize addition of the compensation for loss
of amenities of life.
7. The appeal is dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of.
8. The appellant has deposited the entire awarded amount with the
Registrar General of this Court out of which 50% amount has been released
to respondent No.1.
9. List for disbursement of the balance amount to respondent No.1 on
20th March, 2020.
10. Respondent No.1 shall remain present in Court on the next date of
hearing along with the passbook of his savings bank account near the place
of his residence as well as PAN card and Aadhaar card. The concerned bank
of respondent No.1 is directed not to issue any cheque book or debit card to
respondent No.1 and if the same have already been issued, the bank is
directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on his passbook to this
effect. Respondent No.1 shall produce the copy of this order to the
concerned bank, whereupon the bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of respondent No.1 that no cheque book and/or debit card shall be
issued to respondent No.1 without the permission of this Court. However,
the concerned bank shall permit respondent No.1 to withdraw money from
his savings bank account by means of a withdrawal form. Respondent No.1
shall produce the original passbooks of his individual savings bank account
with the necessary endorsement on the next date of hearing.
11. The statutory amount be refunded back to the appellant within four
weeks.
12. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
FEBRUARY 06, 2020
dk
