Saroj v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

1. Sh.

2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 8th Floor, Kanchanjanga Building, 18, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi...Respondent No.2 Through: Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, Advocate for R[2]. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.

JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA JUDGMENT (oral)

1. The Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988(‘M.V. Act’ hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation, granted in the sum of Rs.15,90,500/along with the interest @9% p.a. vide Award dated 05.08.2020.

2. The enhancement is sought by the Claimant on the following grounds: i) that the Minimum Wages have been taken as of unskilled worker, while the Claimant was a housewife and a tailor and her Minimum Wages should be taken as of a skilled worker, which is Rs.11,154/-; ii) that the Functional Disability has been taken as 81% as specified in the Permanent Disability Certificate, but should have been assessed as 100%.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the computation of the Award has been done in a fair and just manner and does not warrant any interference.

4. Submissions heard.

5. The Appellant, Smt. Saroj aged about 52 years, met with an accident on 17.05.2016, when she was hit by a Truck bearing No. PB-11BU-3095, driven by the Respondent No. 1, Mr. Gurchain Singh, in rash and negligent manner. FIR No. 147/16 under Section 279/337/338/427 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District Sas Nagar, Punjab.

6. The learned Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs. Rs.15,90,500/- along with the interest @9% p.a. Functional Disability:

7. The first aspect for consideration is that the assessment of the Functional Disability of the Claimant. The Claimant/injured as PW-1 had deposed about her Permanent Disability. She further stated that she because of the injury, has not been able to do any activity without the help of an attendant.

8. As per the Permanent Disability Certificate, Ex.PW-1/4, she had suffered 81% disability of both lower limbs and pelvis on account of fracture of pelvis with fracture of clavicle left side with above elbow amputation of right side.

9. PW-2, Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, Specialist Orthopaedics, SRHC Hospital, who proved the Disability Certificate, Ex.PW-1/4, corroborated that since the disability suffered was in relation to all four limbs and pelvis and was not likely to improve in future, her re-assessment was not recommended. It was further deposed that because of the nature of Permanent Disability, she would have difficulty in performing her household work and would require the assistance of an attendant for performing her day-to-day activities.

10. It is, therefore, evident from the evidence led by the Appellant which is corroborated by the Doctor that though the Permanent Disability has been assessed as 81%, she has suffered from 100% functional disability. The Appellant is a housewife and also claimed to be doing the work of tailoring, though there is no proof of the Claimant doing any tailoring work. However, even if she is considered to be a housewife, she is entitled to the wages to a skilled worker i.e. Rs.11,154/- per month.

11. Therefore, the loss of income is re-calculated as under:- Rs.11,154 X 12 X 11(multiplier) = Rs.14,72,328/-

12. The enhanced amount is awarded in the sum of Rs. 14,72,328 along with the interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Appeal till the date of disbursement. Non-Pecuniary Heads: