Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.10.2023
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GEN INS CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Mohd. Mustafa, Adv.
Through: Mr.S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant challenges the Award dated 02.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Award‟) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in MACT Case no. 4944/16 (Old No. 431/11), titled Master Sumit v. Parmeshwar Kumar & Ors.
2. The above Claim Petition was filed by the respondent no.1 herein claiming compensation for the injury suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 30.10.2010.
3. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that on 30.10.2010 at about 4:20 p.m., he alongwith his friend Gaurav, was going on a bicycle and upon reaching Sector-5, DSIDC, Near Police Booth, Bawana, Delhi, all of a sudden, a truck bearing registration no. HR-38M-1386 (hereinafter referred to as the „Offending Vehicle‟), being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the bicycle. As a result thereof, they both fell down on the road and sustained injuries. As far as the respondent no.1 is concerned, he was initially admitted in Maharishi Balmiki Hospital, from where he went to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh. He remained on bedrest for about eight months due to the injuries sustained by him.
4. The learned Tribunal described his injury from the Discharge Summery as under: “..Blunt trauma abdomen with large hemoperitoneum & Retroperitoneal Hematoma with liver laceration, left sided pleural effusion, fracture sacrum, fracture left inferior public rami, shearing injury right gluteal region with hematoma and shearing injury left gluteal region with avulsion flap with necrosis due to the accident in question. He is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the tune of 25% in relation to both lower limbs…” Loss of Future Income
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation towards loss of future income to the respondent no.1. He submits that since the respondent no.1 was aged about 14 years and was studying in a school, there was no basis for the learned Tribunal to award loss of future income to the respondent no.1, and the same should have been awarded only for a notional amount.
6. I find no merit in this challenge of the appellant.
7. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Master Anshu Kumar @ Bhola & Ors, 2023:DHC:6241, this Court after considering various precedents on this issue, has held as under:
24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases like MCD v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750, U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande (2017) 3 SCC
351. This Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied)
23. In Master Ayush v. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. &Anr., (2022) 7 SCC 738, the Supreme Court has again awarded compensation towards loss of income in the case of a 5 year old victim of the road accident, by placing reliance on the minimum wages notified in the State of Karnataka, as was applicable in that case.
24. In Minor Roopa v. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5069 of 2022 decided on 03.08.2022, the Supreme Court again relied upon and assessed the compensation based on the minimum wages notified by the State of Karnataka in that case.
25. In Baby Raksha & Ors. (Supra), this Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kajal (Supra), has held as under: -
26. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court, in my opinion, the most reasonable basis for determining the loss of income, even in the case of a minor, would be the minimum wages notified by the State Government where the minor resides at the time of the accident.”
8. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has observed that due to the injuries suffered, the respondent no.1 would not be able to effectively do or to perform any job or activity requiring field work, travelling, driving or even a job which might require him to stand for a long duration. He can only perform those jobs wherein he is required to discharge his duty while sitting. The learned Tribunal has therefore considered the functional disability with respect to the whole body as 25%. The learned Tribunal has also relied upon the minimum wages notified for a non-matriculate for determining the loss of income.
9. I find no infirmity in the above method for determining “just compensation” in favour of the respondent no.1. Pain and suffering, Loss of General Amenities and Enjoyment of life
10. The next challenge of the learned counsel for the appellant to the Impugned Award is on an amount of Rs.[2] lac being awarded by the learned Tribunal to the respondent no.1 towards pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.[2] lac towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life.
11. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr, (2014) 14 SCC 396, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that only a consolidated amount of Rs.[3] lac should have been granted on the above heads.
12. I again find no merit in the said contention.
13. In Master Mallikarjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.[3] lakhs is to be awarded.
14. In Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Supreme considered the above judgment and emphasised that one of the factors which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case of a permanent disability suffered by a child is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come again to the Court seeking enhancement of the Award at the later stage praying that something extra has been spent. While awarding compensation, the Court must not only take the physical disability but also the mental disability and other various factors into account.
15. The nature of injury suffered by the respondent no.1 has been mentioned above. As noted, the respondent no.1 was confined to bed for a period of eight months due to the injuries suffered. For a child of young age of 14 years, the respondent no.1 would have suffered enormous pain as a result of the injury and would continue to suffer loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life for the rest of his life. Keeping in view his tender age and the disability that he will suffer for his remaining life, in my opinion, the amount of Rs.[4] lac awarded by the learned Tribunal towards pain and suffering, loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life, cannot be said to be unreasonable and exorbitant. Conclusion & Direction
16. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
17. The appellant vide order dated 13.07.2018, was directed to deposit the awarded amount along with interest with the learned Tribunal. By the subsequent order dated 08.10.2018, 50% thereof was directed to be released in favour of the respondent no.1.
18. As the appeal stands dismissed, the remaining amount shall also be released in favour of the respondent no.1 as per the schedule of disbursal prescribed by the Impugned Award.
19. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be released to the appellant alongwith interest accrued thereon.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J OCTOBER 16, 2023/Arya/am