Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 3rd May, 2018
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.K. Bhat, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sangram Patnaik, Mr. Imran Khan, Ms. Shaymsidha Patnaik, Mr. Yusuf Khan and Ms. Anvesha Dwivedi, Advs. for R1.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.64,58,657/- has been awarded to respondent No.1.
2. On 26th December, 2013 at about 10:00 P.M., respondent No.1 was returning from Ghaziabad, U.P. to Delhi in his Mahindra Scorpio car when he was hit by Mahindra Bolero Pick-up truck bearing No. UP-12T-8232 near Village Suheri. The accident caused grievous injuries to respondent No.1 who was taken to Bijnor District Hospital and was then shifted in a critical condition to Jagdamba Super Specialty Hospital & Trauma Centre, Meerut, U.P. The police registered the FIR No.1344/2013 at P.S. Kotwali Shahar, Bijnor against respondent No.2. 2018:DHC:2905
3. Respondent no.1 suffered traumatic head injuries with contused lacerated wounds over lateral right arm; CLW over right foot with degloving injuries; burst fracture of C[5] and C[6] vertebral with compressed spinal cord; pre-vertebral hematoma at C6/C[7] level; contusion in soft tissue in neck; fracture of C[2] to C[5] level with fracture of bones in right lower limbs; fracture of 1/4th of right tibia as well as injuries in the spinal cord which resulted in Quadriplegia and 100% permanent disability in relation to neck and all four limbs due to fracture dislocation of C[5] and C[6] besides spinal cord compression with fracture distal and tibia.
4. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.64,58,657/- to respondent No.1 as per break up given here under:-
(i) Future Loss of Income Rs.30,72,000/-
(ii) Pain, Shock & Suffering Rs.5,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of Amenities & Enjoyment of Life Rs.5,00,000/-
(iv) Servant/attendant charges Rs.1,00,000/-
(v) Conveyance & special diet Rs.60,000/-
(vi) Medical bills Rs.13,82,657/-
(vii) Loss of Wages Rs.5,44,000/-
(viii) Future Medical Expenses Rs.3,00,000/-
5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the deceased was contributory negligent. It is further submitted that the functional disability of 100% taken by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side. It is further submitted that the award of Rs.5,44,000/- towards loss of wages be set aside as the loss of wages are included in the head of loss of earning capacity. It is further submitted that the Income Tax has not been deducted from the income of respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the heads of non-pecuniary compensation is also on a higher side. It is lastly submitted that rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal @ 12% per annum is on higher side and is liable to be reduced.
6. With respect to the objection of contributory negligence, the respondent No.1 examined two eye witnesses namely PW-3, Riyasat Ali and PW-6, Deepak Kumar who were travelling in the Scorpio car and deposed that respondent No.1 was travelling on the right side of the road whereas the offending vehicle came from the wrong side and hit the Scorpio car driven by respondent No.1. The appellant examined the driver of the offending vehicle as R3W[2]. The documents relating to the criminal case have been placed on record including the site plan. The site plan clearly shows that the offending vehicle came on the wrong side of the road and hit Scorpio car driven by respondent No.1. There is no infirmity in the finding of the Claims Tribunal holding the offending vehicle negligent.
7. There is merit in the appellant’s contention that loss of wages of Rs.5,44,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal would be included in the loss of earning capacity taken by the Claims Tribunal as Rs.13,72,000/- and Income Tax has not been deducted from the income of the deceased. However, no reduction in the award amount is warranted on account of the aforesaid two grounds considering that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded future prospects to which the respondent No.1 was entitled to in terms of National Insurance Co. Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017 SCC Online SC 1270. Moreover, this Court is satisfied that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal does not warrant any interference. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side and is, therefore, reduced to 9% per annum.
8. The appeal is dismissed. The award of compensation of Rs.64,58,657/- by the Claims Tribunal is upheld. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum.
9. The appellant has deposited Rs.80,26,662/- with the Claims Tribunal on 9th March, 2017 in terms of order dated 23rd February, 2017. The Accounts Officer of this Court has done the calculation of the interest and as per the said calculation, the appellant has deposited interest @ 9% per annum on the principal award amount. In that view of the matter, the judgment passed by this Court stands satisfied.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to refund on account of reduction of rate of interest from 12% to 9%. It is clarified that excess interest, if any, shall be treated as compensation under the head of future prospects and appellant is not entitled to any refund.
11. With respect to Rs.80,26,662/- deposited by the appellant, Rs.27 lakh has been released to respondent No.1 and the balance amount is lying with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar Branch. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar Branch is directed to disburse the amount as under:-
(i) Rs.50 lakh be kept in 100 FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each in the name of respondent No.1 for the periods 1 month to 100 months respectively, with cumulative interest.
(ii) The balance amount, after keeping Rs.50 lakh in 100 FDRs, be released to respondent No.1 by transferring the same to his savings bank account No.04882011000134, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar Branch, IFSC Code: ORBC0100488.
12. At the time of maturity, maturity amounts shall be credited in the individual savings bank account of respondent No.1.
13. All the original FDRs shall be retained by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch. However, a statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount be furnished to respondent No.1.
14. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted without the permission of this Court.
15. Liberty is given to respondent No.1 to approach this Court for premature release of some of the FDRs in the event of any financial/medical exigency.
16. Statutory amount be refunded to the appellant.
17. Copy of this judgement be given dasti to learned counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master. MAY 03, 2018 J.R.MIDHA, J. rsk