Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 6th November, 2024
ANJU MAHAJAN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Mainee and Ms. Divya Saini, Advocates.
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
JUDGMENT
1. Present Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant for necessary directions.
2. It is submitted that this Court vide final Judgment dated 05.12.2019 had enhanced the Compensation as granted vide Award dated 16.07.2016. Considering that the Appellant had suffered 90% Permanent Disability of the whole body with fracture dorso-lumbar spine with paraplegia with balder/bowel involvement (0/5 power) fracture D-12 vertebra, Respondent No. 3 was directed to make a wheel-chair available for life time to the injured and the same included replacement or up gradation of the wheelchair, as recorded in Paragraph 11 of the Judgment dated 05.12.2019,
3. The Appellant submits that the earlier wheel-chair, that was purchased in 2018, needs replacement by a new automatic power wheel-chair and the cost of the same is Rs.3,67,500/- as per the Quotation annexed with the Application.
4. It is further submitted that as per Paragraph 14 and 15 of Judgment dated 05.12.2019, Rs.5,40,000/- has been illegally deducted by the Respondent/Insurance company towards T.D.S. (20% amount), despite the PAN Card and ITR’s of the Appellant being made available on record. The amount deducted should have been only Rs.2,70,000/- i.e. 10% of the amount as per Annexure-P[2] filed with the Appeal. There is an illegal deduction of Rs.2,70,000/- plus interest w.e.f 2017, which has resulted in wrongful loss to the Appellant.
5. Thus, it is prayed that the Insurance Company be directed to release the amount of purchase of new wheel-chair and also to refund Rs.2,70,000/with interest as has been wrongly deducted by way of T.D.S.
6. Learned Counsel on behalf of Insurance Company submits that such open ended Directions to make the wheel-chair available without specifying the time is not tenable under the law as the Supreme Court in various judgments has deprecated this kind of open ended Orders. It is, however, submitted that proper remedy would be followed by the Insurance Company to seek the rectification/clarification on this aspect.
7. In respect of T.D.S. Certificate it is submitted that the amount already stands deposited to the Income Tax Department and there is no reason for the Insurance Company to be directed to pay the amount as claimed to have been paid in excess by the Appellant.
8. Submissions heard and record perused.
9. The Claimant/Appellant has been held entitled to up-gradation of the wheel-chair. The Brochure/Catalogue of the wheel-chair along with the Quotation of the cost has been placed along with the Application.
10. The Insurance Company shall verify the Cost Quotation/Provisional Invoice and shall make the payment directly in respect of the purchase of the wheel-chair of the same model, to this vendor or any other vendor who may be providing the wheel-chair at lesser amount, within six weeks, under intimation to the Petitioner/Claimant.
11. In so far as the refund of TDS is concerned, the Appellant is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy for refund of the excess T.D.S. paid to the Income Tax Department.
12. It is further clarified that these kind of Applications which are in the nature of execution or seeking execution/implementation of any part of the Award/Order, may henceforth be filed before the learned Tribunal.
13. The application stands disposed of.
JUDGE NOVEMBER 6, 2024