Full Judgment Text
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 08 March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 600/2012
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K. L. Nandwani, Mr. P. Acharya
& Ms. Neetika Chaturvedi, Advs.
versus
NEHA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appellant/insurance company raises two short issues concerning
the directions in the judgment dated 18.02.2012 passed by the motor
accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on the claim petition of the first
respondent (the claimant), registered as suit no.24/2010 seeking
compensation for injuries sustained and permanent disability suffered by her
as a result of a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 03.04.2010
involving a truck bearing registration no.HR-55H-3757 admittedly insured
with it (the appellant) against third party risk for the period in question.
2. The tribunal awarded ` 71,46,808/- as compensation with interest at
the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum from the date of filing of the
MAC APP. No.600/2012 Page 1 of 4
petition (09.07.2010) till realization, directing the insurance company to pay,
calculating the compensation as under:-
Treatment Expenses : ` 20,768/-
Pain & suffering : ` 75,000/-
Diet & conveyance : ` 25,000/-
Attendant’s charges : ` 9,000/-
Loss of Studies : ` 6,000/-
Disability : ` 3,11,040/-
Loss of Marriage Prospects/
Disfigurement/amenities : ` 1,00,000/-
Cost of Limb : ` 66,00,000/-
___________
Total : ` 71,46,808/-
3. The insurance company questions the addition of future prospects to
the extent of fifty percent (50%) for calculating the loss of income on
account of disability worked out as ` 3,11,040/-.
4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia , ruled
that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted
in cases where the deceased was “self employed” or was working on a
“fixed salary”. Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble
Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr ., (2013) 9 SCC
65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh
& Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors. , (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a
larger bench, inter-alia , by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC166.
MAC APP. No.600/2012 Page 2 of 4
5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in
MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 ( Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd. ), this Court has
found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in
MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 ( HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.1.2015, presently taking the decision
in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law
on the subject of future prospects for those who are “self-employed” or
engaged in gainful employment at a “fixed salary” is clarified by a larger
bench of the Supreme Court. This applies to the matter at hand because the
claimant here has not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to
any periodic increase.
6. Since the income was notionally calculated, the element of future
prospects has to be kept out. Thus, on the notional income of ` 11,520/-,
worked out to the extent of 64% on account of permanent disability,
factoring the loss of future income due to disability comes to (11520x18)
` 2,07,360/-. This would result in reduction of the compensation payable to
the claimant by (3,11,040-2,07,360) ` 1,03,680/-.
7. The total compensation payable, thus, comes to (71,46,808-
1,03,680) ` 70,43,128/-, rounded off to ` 70,44,000/-. The compensation is
modified accordingly.
8. The second contention of the insurance company is that the cost of
artificial limb and its replacement during the remainder of the life of the
claimant computed as 66,00,000/- was made available to the claimant
`
MAC APP. No.600/2012 Page 3 of 4
unconditionally without in built guarantees that it may be availed of only
upon need(s) for replacement or maintenance in future.
9. The learned counsel for the claimant fairly agreed to this reservation
and submitted that the claimant is inclined, ready and willing to submit
before the tribunal the quotations of the cost required to be incurred for
replacement/maintenance of artificial limb from time to time with medical
advice in support to seek withdrawal of the amounts put in the fixed deposit
receipt(s). The directions given by the tribunal in the impugned judgment
are accordingly modified. The release of such amounts as are required for
aforesaid purposes from the fixed deposit receipts as directed by the tribunal
to be taken out as per (para 29 of) the impugned judgment, would be only
upon it being shown to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the quantum of
expenses sought to be availed is necessary.
10. The insurance company had been directed by order dated 28.05.2012
to deposit twenty five percent (25%) of the awarded amount with up-to-date
interest, out of which ` 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest was allowed to
be released. The insurance company shall now deposit with the tribunal the
balance in terms of the award modified as above, within 30 days whereupon
the same shall be released as per impugned award with modification in
terms noted above.
11. The statutory deposit, if made, shall be refunded.
12. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. Tribunal’s record be
returned.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 08, 2016/ssc
MAC APP. No.600/2012 Page 4 of 4