Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Rajesh Kumar

Towards pain and sufferings,"Rs.

1,00,000/-

Towards          servant/           attendant charges,"Rs.

30,000/-

Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life,"Rs.

60,000/-

Towards conveyance and special diet,"Rs.

40,000/-

Towards medical bills,"Rs.

1,26,000/-

Towards future loss of income,"Rs.

10,86,759/-

Towards loss of wages,"Rs.

2,74,924/-

                                 Â

Total","Rs.

17,17,683/-

faulted with on the aforesaid aspect of contributory negligence. In the face of Disability Certificate (Ex. PW3/1) and evidence of Dr. Anup Kumar,

(PW-2) and Dr. Brijesh Kumar (PW-3), I find that due to the injuries sustained by the Injured in this accident, he is on wheel chair but it cannot be",

said that the “functional disability†of the Injured is 100%. In the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the evidence on record, 80%",

“functional disabilityâ€​ has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal.Â,

As regards compensation granted under the head of “pain and sufferingsâ€, “loss of amenities and enjoyment of lifeâ€, I find that the",

Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- respectively under these two heads. So far as “attendant charges†are",

concerned, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- awarded under this head is justified, as the evidence to claim “attendant chargesâ€​ is scanty.",

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for Injured had drawn attention of this Court to Supreme Court’s decision in Afnees (Supra) to",

submit that compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the head of “loss of amenities of life†has been granted. Reliance placed upon decision in",

Afnees (Supra), is of no avail as the Injured in the said decision was 19 years of age and was reduced to vegetative state due to the accident.",

Reliance placed upon Supreme Court’s decision in Jagdish (Supra) is of no assistance to the case of Injured, as in the said decision, injured was 24",

years of age and so, composite compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the head “loss of amenities of lifeâ€​ was granted, whereas in the instant case,",

Injured â€"Rajesh Kumar is of 42 years of age.,

Supreme Court’s decision in Ankur Kapoor (Supra), is also of no help to the case of Injured as in this decision, compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-",

each under the head of “loss of amenities of life and future prospects†and “pain and suffering†was granted because the Injured was a,

Trainee in a Merchant Navy Company and was unmarried boy of 22 years of age, whereas in the case in hand, Injured was a Safai Karamchari, and",

is married. In view of aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head “pain and",

suffering†and “loss of amenities and enjoyment of life†is just and fair and no case for enhancement of compensation under these two heads is,

made out. As far as interest granted by the Tribunal is concerned, I find that a Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in a recent decision of Jagdish v.",

Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 has granted interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded compensation and so, Injured is also entitled to interest",

@ 9% per annum.,

In view of aforesaid, while modifying the rate of interest payable on the awarded compensation, impugned Award is upheld. Registry is directed to",

forthwith release the awarded compensation to Injured in the manner and ratio as indicated in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be",

refunded to appellant.,

Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.,