Full Text
Date of Decision;21^^ February.2017
UNITEDINDIAINSURANCE COLTD Appellant
Through: Mr.Shoumik Mazmdar,Adv.
Through: Mr.Kuldeep Singh Narwal and Mr.Amit Srivastava,Advs.
Mr.Pradhuman Gautam,Adv. for R2.
Mr.Sanjoy Ghose,amicus curiae with Ms.Pratishtha Vij and Mr.Rhishabh Jetly,Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 05 November, 2015 whereby compensation of Rs.5,27,880/- has been awarded to respondent no.l
2. On 08"^ November, 2009 at about 05:00 pm,respondent No.l wastravelling in truck bearing No.HR29B 0305 as a cleaner when the truck was hit from behind by another vehicle and it hit against a tree which resulted in grievous injuries to respondent No.l. Respondent No.l suffered amputation of left leg below knee level due to the FAO 90-2016 Page[1] of[4] 2017:DHC:9106 © injuries suffered in the accident. Respondent No.l suffered 65% disability in respect ofhis leftlower limb due to the amputation ofleft leg below knee level. The Commissioner,Employees' Compensation took the loss ofearning capacity as 100% and awarded compensation ofRs.5,27,880/- along with interest@ 12% per annum to respondent No.l.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing thatrespondent No.1 did notfurnish any documentary evidence ofthe relationship of employment. It is further submitted that the loss of earning capacity be taken as 65% instead of 100%. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there was the delay in filing the petition.
4. Respondent No.l is presentin Court and his condition has been seen. Respondent No.l is unemployed since the accident and is stayingin his villagein Bihar.RespondentNo.I'sfamily comprisesof his wife and three children.RespondentNo.1 submitsthathe is unable to procure an artificial limb dueto extreme poverty and no amountof compensation hasbeenreleasedto him till date.
5. This Court agrees with the Commissioner, Employees' Compensationthatlossofearningcapacity withrespondentNo.l is of 100%.With respectto the relationship ofthe employment,respondent No.2,employer ofthe deceased has not disputed the relationship of the employer and employee. In that view ofthe matter, there is no infirmity in the Commissioner, Employees Compensation holding thatthe relationship ofemploymentto be valid.
6. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.The FAO90-2016 ^ pending application is disposed of.
7. In pursuance of the order dated 09^*^ Februaiy, 2017, the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has deposited Rs.7,14,225/- with UCO Bank,Delhi High CourtBranch.
8. UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch is directed to keep Rs.6,60,000/- in 120FDRs ofRs.5,500/- for the period 1 month to 120 months respectively with cumulative interest.
9. After keeping Rs.6,60,000/- in FDRs, the balance amount be released to respondent No.l by transferring the same to his savings bank account No.582610110003605 with Bank of India, Branch Alauli, at Alauli, PO: Alauli, Khagaria, Bihar 848203, MICR Code 851013003,IFSC Code BKID0005826.
10. The original FDRs shall remain with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court. However,the statement ofFDRs,amount,date ofmaturity and maturity amount be furnished to respondentNo.1.
11. The maturity amount of each FDR be transferred to the aforesaid savings bank accountofrespondentNo.l.
12. Bank ofIndia, Alauli Branch is directed not to issue debit card or cheque book to the respondentin respectofsavings bank accountin para 9 above. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued,the above bank is directed to cancelthem.
13. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge of FDRs be permitted to respondentNo.1 withoutpermission ofthis Court.
14. The liberty is given to respondent No.l to approach this Court for pre-mature release ofFDR inthe eventofany financial exigency.
15. Listforreporting compliance on 24"^ March,2017. FAO 90-2016 Page3of[4]
16. Copy ofthisjudgment be given dastito learned counsels for the parties under signature ofCourt Master.
17. Copy ofthisjudgment be sent to UCO Bank,Delhi High Court Branch and Bank ofIndia,Alauli Branch,Bihar for compliance. »I FEBRUARY27,2017 J.R^ MIDHA,J. flk cjiyO X-3. ijMM&avia "Xif- FAO90-2016 Page4of[4] $-2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAQ 90/2016 UNITEDINDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant Through: Mr.Shoumik Mazumdar,Adv.
VERSUS
KEDAR MUHIYA AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Narwal, Mr.Amit Srivastava,Adv.for R-1. Mr.Rhishabh Jetley, Adv.for Mr.Sanjoy Ghose,ASC for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA ORDER % 24.03.2017
1. Learned counsel for respondent no.l submits that respondent no.l is 65% disabled and unable to bear the cost of litigation and, therefore, the appellant be awarded the expenses for this litigation.
2. This case relates to an accident dated 8^*^ November, 2009 and the compensation has been disbursed to respondent no.l, who is 65% disabled, only afterthejudgmentdated 27^*^ February,2017.
3. This Court is satisfied that respondent no.l is entitled to the cost of litigation. Respondent no.l is awarded cost oflitigation ofRs.20,000/-. The appellant is directed to depositthe same within four weeks with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means ofa cheque drawn in the name ofUCO Bank Ac Kuldeep,Advocate.
4. Upon the aforesaid deposit being made,UCO Bank,Delhi High Court Branch shall release the same to Mr. Kuldeep, learned counsel for respondent no.l.
5. This appeal has already been disposed ofon 27'*^ February,2017 and need not be listed again.
6. Copy ofthis order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature ofthe Court Master.
MARCH 24,2017 dk:r.midha,j.