Suman & Ors. v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 8,14,825/- awarded in favour ofthe Appellant Smt. Suman.

2. Suman had suffered 72% permanent physical disability in relation to right upper limb and suffered amputation of right middle and ring fmger at proximal phalanx and little finger at MP joint with contracture and stiffness ofwrist joint.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that no MAC APP 634/2013, 2015:DHC:11350 compensation has been awarded to the Appellant towards permanent disability as well as towards employment of maid servant as the A]3pellant had to engage a maid servant on account ofherinability to carry out household work. Itis stated that though the Claims Tribunal granted asum ofRs. I 32,988/- towards loss of rendering gratuitous services to the family members for a period of five months, but the same was not added while computing the compensation in para 28 of the I judgment. The Appellant could have moved the Claims Tribunal for correction of the clerical mistake as well as for addition of Rs. 32,988/- not granted in para 28 as mentioned above. It may be mentioned that on account of permanent disability, the Appellant was granted compensation for loss of gratuitous services to the extent of 50% and as such, her total loss of earning capacity comes out to be Rs. 6,33,360/-. The claim of compensation at Rs. 2000/- per month for engaging a maid servant will be duplication of the Award. In fact, the assessment of loss of gratuitous services taken by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 6,33,360/- was much more than on a multiplicand of Rs. 2006/- per month which is claimed by the Appellant. Similarly, compensation towards permanent disability and loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability is the MACAPP 634/2013 Page 2 of[4] same. Of course, separate compensation is liable to be granted towards loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life which has been duly done by awarding an amount ofRs. 50,000/-. i I

7. It may be notedi that immediately after the accident, the Appellant was admitted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. She was then shifted to Safdarjung Hospital where she remained admitted from the period 16^^ August, 2010 to 3"^ September,

2010. The AppellanSt was then shifted in Dhruv Hospital for the period from 5^^ September, 2010 to lO^*" September, 2010.

8. In the circumstances; the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities at the rate of Rs. 50,000/each seems to be just and reasonable.

9. The Appellant needed an attendant during the period of hospitalisation as also during the recovery period. Though gratuitous services were rendered by some family members, the Appellant cannot be deniedcompensation for the same.

10. Taking into account the injuries suffered, I award a sum of Rs. 6000/- (3000/- X 2) for a period of two months towards the gratuitous services rendered by the family members.

11. The awarded amount is hbnce, enhanced by Rs. 38,988/- which shall carryinterest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation.

12. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

13. Thepending application stands disposed of.

FEBRUARY 04, 2015 sd MAC APP 634/2013

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE