ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munish Bhalla @ Monti Kumar

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 48143/2023

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 434/2023 & CM APPL. 48141/2023

4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 02nd May, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in MACP No. 243/2018, titled as Sh. Munish Bhalla @ Monti Kumar vs. Sh. Om Pal Singh & Anr.

5. The appellant challenges the impugned award, firstly, on account of the compensation being awarded to the respondent no.1 by treating his functional disability to the whole body as 50%.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the Disability Certificate dated 06th February, 2017 (Ex.PW-2/1) issued by Dr. RML Hospital, the respondent no.1 had suffered head injury in the accident resulting in permanent disability of 50% in view of intellectual function impairment with an IQ of 60. He submits that in fact, the respondent no.1 himself appeared as a witness in support of the Claim Petition and his testimony has been relied upon by the learned Tribunal for the finding that the accident had taken place due to the offending vehicle, that is an auto rickshaw, which was being driven by the respondent no.2 herein, in a rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as the injury is only with respect to the intellectual impairment, the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the functional disability of the whole body as 50%.

7. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

8. In assessing the functional disability of the respondent no.1, the learned Tribunal has considered the statement of Dr. Manish K. Kandpal, Associate Prof., Department of Psychiatry, Dr. RML Hospital, who had appeared as PW-2 and proved the Disability Certificate as Ex.PW-2/1. In his statement, he stated that the respondent no.1 would require assistance for his day to day functioning and is not fit for any type of skilled job. He further deposed that person having IQ below 70 is considered to be abnormal, having a case of mental retardation. He stated that the respondent no.1 would find difficulty in memory, performance ability, and comprehension (verbal ability). He further stated that there is no medication required by a person having IQ level of 60, nor any surgical intervention is required; the patient requires only rehabilitation for his maximum recovery in such kind of cases. He stated that the respondent no.1 cannot do any kind of major jobs which requires skills; and that he requires constant assistance and supervision for his day to day activities.

9. Keeping in view the above testimony of the PW-2, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the functional disability of the petitioner as 50% in relation to whole body. In such assessment, the learned Tribunal has also been alive to the fact that the respondent no.1 appeared as a witness before the learned Tribunal.

10. I do not find any reason to disagree with the above assessment.

11. The second challenge of the appellant to the impugned award is on the attendant charges being awarded in his favour.

12. For the attendant charges, PW-2 has clearly stated that the respondent no.1 would require constant assistance and supervision for his day to day activities. In that view, award of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards attendant charges cannot be said to be unreasonable, especially keeping in view the minimum wages notified by NCT of Delhi for an unskilled worker.

13. The third challenge of the appellant to the impugned award is to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards special diet awarded in favour of the respondent no.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent no.1 had not led any evidence in support of his above claim.

14. I do not find any merit in the said contention.

15. The respondent no.1 had sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident. He was admitted in the hospital on 23rd October, 2014 and was discharged on 2nd November, 2014. As noted hereinabove, he has suffered 50% disability towards his whole body. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded on account of special diet, therefore, cannot be said to be unreasonable and does not warrant any interference from this Court. The challenge is, accordingly, rejected.