AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUNIL GAUR ,J.
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West-01, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) vide impugned Award of 19th January, 2015 grants
compensation of Rs.47,81,187/- to first respondent, who was grievously injured in a vehicular accident on 29th April, 2010. The facts, as noted in
impugned Award, are as under: -
“Brief facts of the case of petitioner is that on 29/04/2010 at about 6.15 a.m. was travelling in his Car bearing No. HR-01S7833 and when he
reached at near Metro Station, Tilak Nagar, Delhi and when the petitioner opened the door of his car to came out, suddenly the offending vehicle No.
PB10-B-1513(Bolero Pickup Van) which was driven by its driver/respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner. Resultantly, the
petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. In total, the petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by
injured in the accident.â€
2.The breakup of the compensation granted by the Tribunal is as under: -
“The total compensation is assessed as under:-
Treatment expenses:
Compensation for Future treatment Rs. 9,87,268/-
& implantation Rs. 3,60,000/-
Pain and sufferings: Rs. 50,000/-
Conveyance & special diet: Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 3,83,112/-
Compensation on account of disability:
Compensation on account of loss of Rs. 29,30,807/-
amenities of life and enjoyment of life Rs. 50,000/-
Total: Rs. 47,81,187/- â€
3.First respondent was aged 29 years on the day of accident and by applying multiplier of 17, „loss of earning capacity‟ has been assessed at
Rs.29,30,806.8/-, which has been rounded off to Rs.29,30,807/- while taking the income of respondent-Injured at Rs.63,852/- per month. Towards
„future prospects‟, 50% has been added and thereafter, the „loss of earning capacity‟ has been assessed while taking the permanent disability
suffered to be 27% and the functional disability at 13%.
4.The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer is on the ground that no addition towards „loss of future earnings‟ is to
be made and the „conveyance allowance‟ awarded is not justified. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurer further submits that the yearly job bonus
has been wrongly taken into consideration and that respondent-Injured had received salary for the period he had remained hospitalized and so, the
„loss of income‟ during treatment period has been wrongly granted. It is submitted that as per the evidence of RecordKeeper from the concerned
hospital, Rs.2 lacs was paid by Medi-Claim Insurance and so, the medical expenses assessed ought to be reduced by Rs.2 lacs. So, it is submitted that
the compensation assessed by the Tribunal ought to be suitably reduced.
5.On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Injured submits that leave encashment was adjusted to pay the salary for period of hospitalization
and in view of decision in Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd. & Ors., 2016 (2) AD (Delhi) 359, the compensation under the head of „future loss of
earning‟ is payable to respondent-Injured. Learned counsel for respondent-Injured thus submits that no case for reduction of quantum of
compensation is made out.
6.In rebuttal, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer that the Tribunal has taken the income of respondent-Injured as Rs.63,852/- i.e.
the salary before the accident and after the accident, the annual package of respondent-Injured was Rs.17.63 lacs per annum w.e.f. 3rd July, 2012.
That is to say, Rs.1,46,916/- per month.
7.Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and the decision cited, I find that the evidence regarding „loss of future
prospects‟ is lacking and so, reliance placed upon decision in Sunil Kumar (supra) is of no avail to the case of respondent-Injured. As such, addition of
50% made by the Tribunal towards „future prospects‟ is disallowed and compensation granted under the head of ‘loss of earning capacity‟ is
reassessed at Rs.16,93,355/- (Rs.63,852/-X 12 X 17 X 13/100). So far as grant of „conveyance allowance‟, „treatment expenses‟ and the
adjustment of yearly job bonus or the deduction of Rs.2 lacs paid by the Medi-Claim Insurer is concerned, I find that there is no effective
crossexamination of the concerned witnesses on these aspects and therefore, no case for reduction of compensation under these heads is made out.
8.In view of the aforesaid, compensation payable to respondent-
Injured is reassessed as under: -
Treatment expenses:
Compensation for Future treatment Rs. 9,87,268/-
& implantation Rs. 3,60,000/-
Pain and sufferings: Rs. 50,000/-
Conveyance & special diet: Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 3,83,112/-
Compensation on account of disability:
Compensation on account of loss of Rs. 16,93,355/-
amenities of life and enjoyment of life Rs. 50,000/-
Total: Rs. 35,43,735/-
9.In light of aforesaid, compensation granted by the Tribunal to respondent-Injured is reduced from Rs.47,81,187/- to Rs.35,43,735/-. Impugned
Award is accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent. The reassessed compensation shall carry the interest @ 9% per annum and it shall be
disbursed in the manner and ratio as indicated in the impugned Award. Appellant-Insurer shall deposit the modified compensation in terms of this
judgment within a period of four weeks from today with the Registry of this Court and thereupon, it be released forthwith to respondent-Injured in the
manner indicated in the impugned Award. Subject to appellant-Insurer depositing the modified compensation in terms of this judgment, statutory
deposit, if any, be refunded to appellantInsurer, as per Rules.
10.With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the application are disposed of.