M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. GUL MOHD. @ GULLU & ORS.

1. The accident claim case (Suit No.152/11), was instituted on 08.07.2011, by the first respondent (claimant), seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 26.03.2011, due to negligent driving of motor vehicle described as bus, bearing registration No.DL-1PB-6654, of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question with the appellant (insurer). By judgment dated 27.08.2012, the tribunal accepted the said claim, returned a finding that the claimant had been rendered permanently disabled, his functional disability having been taken as 50% and granted award accordingly in the total sum of Rs.30,61,600/-, 2017:DHC:7751 fastening the liability to pay on the insurer with interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.12,41,600/-, calculating it thus:-

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Sl.No.                         Heads                    Amount (in Rs.)           │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│      1.      Medicines expenses                                       10,000/-    │
│      2.      Artificial limb                                     18,20,000/-      │
│      3.      Pain and suffering                                       75,000/-    │
│      4.      Special diet, conveyance & attendant                     57,000/-    │
│              charges                                                              │
│      5.      Loss of income                                           67,000/-    │
│      6.      Loss of future income                                   9,82,600/-   │
│      7.      Loss of amenities                                        50,000/-    │
│                                                Total             30,61,600/-      │
│ 2.        The appeal at hand was filed by the insurer to submit that the          │
│ award granted is excessive.                                                       │
│ 3.        The appeal was put in the list of ‘Regulars’ to come up on its          │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

8. It is noted that the tribunal made provision for replacement of the artificial limb three times. The submission of the insurer at the hearing that only two replacements would have been sufficient, if accepted, would result in reduction in the award by Rs.4,55,000/- the net reduction being (4,55,000-2,87,400) Rs.1,67,600/-. But, it is noted that the awards under the head of loss of amenities and pain and suffering are grossly inadequate. If said non-pecuniary damages were to be suitably enhanced, the total award of compensation granted by the tribunal would need to be maintained.

9. In the above facts and circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.

10. By order dated 02.01.2013, the insurance company was directed to deposit the entire awarded amount and by subsequent order dated 11.03.2013, fifty per cent (50%) thereof was permitted to be released to the claimant. The balance lying in deposit shall also now be released to the claimant in terms of the judgment of the tribunal.

11. The statutory amount shall stand forfeited as costs in favour of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

12. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. R.K.GAUBA, J. DECEMBER 12, 2017 vk