IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD v. PREM SINGH & ANR

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the Award dated 23.07.2014.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the claim petition are that respondent No.1 on 27.02.2013 suffered injuries in a road vehicular accident near Petrol Pump, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. The claim petition was registered based on a Detailed Accident Report.

3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal awarded the following compensation.

1. Compensation for medical expenses Rs.70,520/-

2. Compensation for conveyance Rs.25,000/-

3. Compensation for special diet Rs.25,000/-

4. Compensation for attendant charges Rs.50,000/-

5. Compensation for future earnings and loss of income due to permanent Rs.9,20,000/- 2014:DHC:5640 disability

6. Compensation for pain, sufferings & loss of amenities of life: Rs. 4,50,000/- Total Rs.15,40,520/-

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made two submissions to impugn the award. He firstly submits that as per the disability certificate placed on record, respondent No.1 has been assessed to have 32% disability. He submits that the Tribunal on no evidence whatsoever has assessed the functional disability also at 32% and has taken the minimum wages of Rs. 8,814/- per month and wrongly awarded Rs.9,20,000/- as compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability. He secondly submits that the compensation for pain, sufferings and loss of amenities of life has been awarded at Rs.4,50,000/- which is grossly in excess. He submits that the matter deserves to be remanded back with the directions to the Tribunal to reassess the functional disability in a proper manner.

5. As far as functional disability is concerned, the appellant has handed over a copy of the disability certificate issued by the Medical Record Department of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The relevant portion of the disability certificate reads as follows: “The Medical Board held on 11.06.2014 under the Chairmanship of Dr.Vinu Khanna, Addl. M.S. & Board Members examined the patient Sh. Prem Singh, 34 years/Male S/O Sh. Ratan Chand, R/O 164/6, Peer Baba Basti, Jait Pur Village, New Delhi-110044. The Board is of opinion that the patient is a case of “post traumatic Head Injury Sequeals Moderate Speech dysarthria and malunited intertrochanteric fracture femur left side with restricted left hip movement with ppi 32% which is permanent in nature with respect of whole body.”

6. The Tribunal also noted that respondent No.1 claims to be working as a salesman at a petrol pump and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal noted that the claimant/respondent No.1 has not filed on record any document in respect of his avocation or his monthly earnings. The Tribunal also noted that respondent No.1 has placed on record his 10th class mark sheet issued from Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. Keeping in view this aspect the Tribunal had assessed the income of respondent No.1 based on minimum wages of a matriculate notified by Delhi Government as Rs.8,814/-. The Tribunal accepted that the claimants used to be working as salesman and the disability suffered would affect the working capacity of respondent No. 1 to the extent of 32% and accordingly awarded compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 culled out the methodology for determining functional disability in paragraph 14, relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60 per cent. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100 per cent as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60 per cent which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand....”

8. In my opinion, there is no reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 has suffered post traumatic head injury with moderate Speech dysarthria. He has a fracture of the femur left side with restricted left hip movement. In the light of these factors the assessment of functional disability at 32% is in order.

9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the said contention of the appellant.