Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Dil Bagh Singh

1. Impugned Award of 17th December, 2012 grants compensation of `19,24,580/- with interest @ 7.[5] % per annum to respondent/injured-Dil Bagh Singh, aged 35 years, on account of grievous injury suffered by him in a vehicular accident, which took place on 16th February, 2008. The above-captioned first appeal is by the Insurer to seek reduction of the quantum of compensation granted, whereas in the above-captioned second appeal, Injured seeks enhancement in the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2018:DHC:4040

2. The facts, as noticed in the impugned Award, are as under:- “On 16.02.2008 at about 10:00 p.m, Dil Bagh Singh was sleeping on one side of the road at Azadpur Fruit Mandi, near shed No. 9, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. Suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. HR38-J-6381 being driven by R[1] rashly, negligently and at a very fast speed without taking necessary precautions and without blowing horn violently hit the petitioner with great force and ran over both his legs. Petitioner was removed to BJRM Hospital, where he was given first aid. Thereafter, he was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he remained hospitalised till 10.03.2008. The injuries sustained by the petitioner or having not healed, he is not able to do any work.”

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the abovecaptioned appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) has relied upon evidence of injured and Dr.Paramjit Singh and as per evidence of this witness, injured had sustained 100% permanent disability in relation to whole body. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award has been rendered. The breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal is as under:-

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│       Sl.   Compensation under various heads        Amount awarded                      │
│       No.                                                                               │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│       1.    Medical Treatment Expenses                       `10,783/-                  │
│       2.    Loss of Earning Capacity                     ` 10,90,521/-                  │
│       3.    Attendant Charges                               ` 50,000/-                  │
│       4.    Cost of Artificial Limb and annual           `5,24,000/- +                  │
│             maintenance expenditure                      `1,80,000/- =                  │
│                                                           ` 7,04,000/-                  │
│       5.    Loss of Amenities in Life &                   ` 2,00,000/-                  │
│ MAC.APPs.135/2013 & 654/2013                                         Page 7 of 8        │
│                                                                         2018:DHC:4040   │
│                Disfigurement                                                            │
│       6.       Pain and Suffering                        ` 1,50,000/-                   │
│       7.       Conveyance                                ` 1,92,000/-                   │
│       8.       Special Diet                                ` 15,000/-                   │
│                Total                                    ` 24,12,304/-                   │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

9. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I find that the „conveyance charges‟ are not only for the past, but are granted keeping in view the future needs also and the Tribunal has computed the „conveyance charges‟ while relying upon decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Harmohinder Singh v. Mangla Prasad & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del

4426. As such, I find that the „conveyance charges‟ granted by the Tribunal are adequate and no case for its reduction is made out.

10. Compensation on account of „loss of earning capacity‟ has been granted by the Tribunal on minimum wages of an unskilled worker and addition of 30% towards „future prospects‟ has been made by the Tribunal to grant compensation of `9,06,797/- under this head. I find that the compensation granted under this head is not on higher side. Rather it is inadequate, as I find that copy of driving licence of Injured is on record and so, it cannot be said that the Injured is an unskilled person. Accordingly, while applying the minimum wages of a skilled worker, addition of 40% towards „future prospects‟ has to be made in view of Supreme Court’s decision in Mangla Ram (supra). Thus, „loss of dependency‟ is reassessed as under: - `4057/- per month + 40% X 12 X 16= `10,90,521/-

11. Regarding cost of artificial limb, I find that the Tribunal has relied upon decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Harmohinder Singh (supra) to grant compensation under this head. The Injured in his appeal has led additional evidence of Anshul Sengar from Otto Bock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., and as per this witness, the Injured was examined by a Prosthetist and Orthotist and his evidence remained unchallenged.

12. In view afore-referred unrebutted additional evidence, the cost of artificial limbs is `5,24,000/- and its life is 5 to 6 years and thereafter, new prosthesis has to be purchased and the annual maintenance expenditure of the artificial limbs is between `25,000/- to `30,000/- per year. The Injured was 35 years in the year 2012. While taking the life expectancy to be 66 years, it is reasonable to assume that the replacement of artificial limbs is likely to take place 4 or 5 times during the life-time of Injured. In the face of aforesaid additional evidence on record, a sum of `26 lacs is granted to enable the Injured to obtain artificial limbs with periodical replacements and a sum of `1,80,000/- is also granted to Injured to meet the annual maintenance expenditure of the artificial limbs. In the first instance, Insurer shall directly release a sum of `5.24 lacs for obtaining artificial limbs and `1,80,000/- (Rs.30,000/- per year X 6 years) to meet the annual maintenance expenditure of the artificial limbs to Otto Bock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. upon Injured furnishing the requisite documents. Likewise, for obtaining new prosthesis periodically, if advised by doctors in future, `5.24 lacs with `1,80,000/- towards annual maintenance expenditure of the artificial limbs be directly released to Otto Bock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. or the Hospital/Agency from where the artificial limbs are procured, subject to Injured furnishing the requisite documents.

13. So far as grant of recovery rights to Insurer are concerned, I find that the driving licence of the driver of insured vehicle had expired on 8th February, 2008 and the accident in question had taken place on 16th February, 2008. As per Proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even after the expiry of the driving licence, it would remain effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry. The purport of this Proviso is to enable such drivers to get it renewed within 30 days. So, recovery rights cannot be granted to Insurer as the accident in question had taken place during the period of 30 days after the expiry of the driving licence in question. Compensation of `1.[5] lacs granted by the Tribunal under the head of „pain and suffering‟ appears to be justified in the facts and circumstances of this case and is thus maintained. The Tribunal has granted `50,000/- towards „attendant charges‟, which are not required to be interfered with, as adequate cost for obtaining of artificial limbs is being awarded to Injured. The compensation granted under other heads is found to be justified and is thus maintained.

14. As far as interest granted by the Tribunal is concerned, I find that a Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in a recent decision of Jagdish v. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 has granted interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded compensation and so, appellant is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum.

15. In view of aforesaid, the compensation payable to Injured is reassessed as under: - Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Amount awarded

1. Medical Treatment Expenses `10,783/-