Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd v. Bhupesh Kumar Sharma & Ors.

1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after examining the matter and upon instructions from the appellant, he would not like to press the issue of identity of the vehicle involved in the accident which injured the claimant. He, however, questions the quantum of compensation awarded by the impugned order dated 30.07.2018 passed in MACP Petition NO. 5288/2016, on the ground that the same is not based upon cogent reasons. It is his argument that 40% permanent disability suffered by the injured was taken to be 25% functional disability for the whole body.

2. The Court finds that the injured has sustained: i) 32% disability in relation to sensorineural hearing loss and ii) 8% disability in relation to post traumatic stiffness of right hip and knee. The same is evident from the 2019:DHC:4666 Disability Certificate (Ex. PW3/1) dated 19.08.2013 issued by the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi. PW3- Dr. Kapil Sikka, who was one of the members of Disability Board constituted by AIIMS, testified to the aforesaid disability of the appellant. He also deposed that the injured had suffered loss of hearing of both ears, therefore, he would be requiring required a hearing aid for the rest of his life. PW[3] was not cross-examined by the appellant. It is in these circumstances, the learned Trial Court had considered the whole body functional disability at 25%. The Court finds no reasons to interfere with the same.

3. The appellant’s main grievance is that the award of Rs. 1.50 lacs towards ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life’ is on the higher side. The Court notes that the claimant was merely 34 years of age and working at the Indira Gandhi International Airport; the acuteness of his loss of hearing in the context of his employment would be far more than what has been awarded in the impugned order. In the circumstances, the compensation apropos ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life’ is enhanced to Rs. 2.50 lacs.

4. The appeal is disposed-off in the above terms. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to the claimant, as costs towards this litigation. CM APPL. 4919/2019 (By R-1 for release of amount)

5. The claimant has sought release of the entire amount as he has already expended huge amounts on his treatment. The claimant submits that he has expended Rs. 6,07,389/- towards his medical treatment and other expenses. Bills to that effect have been submitted before the learned Tribunal. Since the compensation awarded is apropos injury suffered by a young person, he seeks release of the same to reimburse the expenditure and to meet his already incurred daily expenses and to rehabilitate himself to the optimum extent possible.

6. In these circumstances, let 50% of the awarded amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be released to the beneficiary of the award within one week of receipt of copy of this order. The remaining 50% amount shall be kept in an interest bearing FDRs, of which 50% shall be released to the claimant after two years and the other 50% after four years.

7. The application stands disposed off accordingly.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2019