National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nitin Sehgal; National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Saurabh Sehgal

1. These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 17th September 2014 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], Central District, Delhi in Suit No. 232/2011 and Suit NO. 233/2011, whereby compensation of Rs.16,79,700/- and Rs.3,39,058/- was awarded to the claimant respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accident occurred on 18th December 2005 at about 8:00 PM when the claimants were standing near motorcycle on the roadside, a car bearing registration no. DL-6-CM-0058 driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed hit the claimants as a result of which they both sustained injuries.

3. Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel for Insurance Company, contends that as regards Nitin Sehgal, who suffered 60% permanent mental disability, functional disability has been taken as 100% since he was a minor on the date of the accident (aged about 17 ½ years), the minimum wages of non-matriculate have been taken on which future prospects at 50% has been applied. He states that as per the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects at 40% ought to have been applied. The minimum wages have been taken at Rs.3,358/- per month.

4. This contention of Mr. Seth is accepted, to align it with principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra) future prospects at 40% will have to be applied.

5. Mr. Seth also draws attention to the non-pecuniary compensation, seeking adjustment on the same.

6. Countering this, Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for claimant, has drawn attention to the testimony of PW5/ Dr. R.P. Baniwal, Psychiatrist (PGIMER), Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi, who had brough the record of the permanent Disability Certificate. He stated that this is a case of personality and behaviour disorder due to brain disease, damage and dysfunction. He stated that injured was found to have agitated and aggressive behaviour, forgetfulness, slight impairment of self-care and moderate impairment of interpersonal activities, communication and understanding. Further, it was stated that he could not study after Class IX and his daily work has been impaired profoundly, indicating the severity. In cross-examination, he stated that he had personally examined the patient and gave his opinion and he has deposed on the basis of his medical condition.

7. Considering that functional disability has been assessed at 100%, the non-pecuniary compensation awarded is highly depressed and the same need to enhanced in order to granted just and reasonable compensation. The Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 has also held that the Court is duty-bound to award just compensation, even if the same has not been specifically pleaded by the claimant. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as under: “25.....Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty bound and entitled to award “Just Compensation” irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not......” (emphasis supplied)

8. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is inadequate in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in K.S. Muralidhar v.

14. In respect of ‘pain and suffering’ in cases where disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few decisions of this Court:— 14.[1] In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. It was observed: