Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Ansab Jaffar & Ors

1. The learned Joint Registrar (J) on 26.06.2019 recorded that Service of Notice was completed. None appears for the owner and driver of the vehicle.

2. The appellant impugns the award of compensation dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Ld. MACT in MACT No. 358575/16, on the ground that the appellant should be exonerated from any liability in law. Neither the owner, nor the driver of the vehicle has produced a driving license. The impugned order has dealt with the issue as under:-

3. Neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle contested the case set up by the claimant or otherwise set up by the insurer that the driver had no driving licence. The DAR records the involvement of the vehicle and also that the said respondents did not produce any driving license. They have also been prosecuted for breach of relevant legal provisions.

4. The appellant contends that under the principle of Pay and Recover[1], the insurer is liable to pay compensation for third party losses and thereafter it shall have the right of recovery against the driver/owner of the offending vehicle.

5. The appellant challenges the award of compensation on the non-pecuniary heads such as:- “....

9. As discussed above, the overall compensation is tabulated as under: Name of Head Amount in (In ₹) Loss of Income 16, 794 Medical Expenses 911 Conveyance Charges 5,000 Special Diet 5,000 Attendant Charges 5,000 Loss of earning and capacity due to disability Mental & Physical Shock 1,50,000 Pain & suffering 1,00,000 Loss of life amenities 2,00,000 Loss of inconvenience/hardship/disappointment/ mental stress 2,00,000 Loss of disfiguration 1,00,000 Total 7,82,705 Round off:- ₹ 7,83,000/- (Rupees Seven Lac & Eight Three Thousands Only)

(i) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. November 28, 2016 till realization.” As laid down in Manuara Khatun & Ors. vs Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 796.

6. It is the appellant’s case that compensation towards mental and physical shock, ‘pain and suffering’, ‘loss of amenities’, ‘loss of conveyance’, etc., and ‘loss of dependency’ are on higher side. The respondent/injured has suffered a 46% permanent disability in his left lower limb. He was working as an accountant. It is the appellant’s case that his ‘loss of earnings’ would not suffer.

7. The Court would note that compensation towards ‘loss of income’ is only Rs. 16,794/-, medical expenses is Rs. 911/-, conveyance charge is Rs. 5,000/-, special diet is Rs. 5,000/-, attendant charges is Rs. 5,000/-, compensation for mental and physical shock is Rs. 1,50,000/-, pain and suffering is Rs. 1,00,000/-, ‘loss of life amenities’ is Rs. 2,00,000/-, loss of inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, mental stress is Rs. 2,00,000/-, loss of disfiguration is Rs. 1,00,000/-. The compensation towards ‘loss of earning capacity’ has been found to be nil because the injured can work as an accountant despite permanent disability of 46% in his left lower limb. It is only on this ground, no compensation was granted as there was no loss in his earning capacity.

8. Nevertheless, for such person, the compensation on non-pecuniary heads would obviously be much more because of the loss of amenities the injured suffers; for disappointment, mental stress, hardship and inconvenience due to his disability. Accountants would normally be spending time with account books while sitting in offices or places, where they would not be required to or necessarily move about. Therefore, in moments when such a person has to walk about, it would be a relief from the sedentary work style. But the inability to move about even in those spare moments due to the constraints brought about by the permanent physical disability would be particularly disappointing, distressing and excruciating. Hence, due compensation to this life-long disappointment, and for mental and physical shock and pain and suffering needs to be awarded. In the circumstances, the amounts granted to the respondent/claimant cannot be faulted with.

9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.