Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surendra and Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2021FAFO/2897/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Motor Accidents Tribunal appreciated being appealed against by the insurance company for awarding 80% disability and compensation. The court found the 80% computation incongruent with the disability certificate and established norms. The compensation was reduced while enhancing specific heads to Rs. 1,79,240.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 3,55,600 to Rs. 1,79,240, with enhanced amounts for pain and suffering and future treatment; record remanded.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surendra and Others — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2897 of 2003

¶3

Appellant :- United India Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Surendra And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.C. Nigam

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri A.C. Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 25.08.2003 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1 Meerut on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has construed permanent disability at the rate of 80% and has made computation on the basis of such presumption of disability whereas in the disability certificate, available on record, issued by one Dr. R.M. Gupta, Senior Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr. P.L. Sharma, Government District Hospital Meerut, he has admitted that injured was shifted to Community Health Centre, Baraud, and was given primary aid and was referred to higher centre when he was shifted to G.T.P. Hospital, Sahibabad, where he remained admitted on 20.02.2002 and shifted to some Nursing Home at Durgapur Chauk, on 25.02.2002, remained there for night only and then shifted to All India Institute of Medical Science, where he was admitted on 26.02.2002. He left AIIMS on 27.02.2002 and was again admitted in Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Delhi from 27.02.2002 to 14.04.2002 and was shifted to his home and took O.P.D. treatment upto October, 2002. Certifying doctor has clearly mentioned that above history is written on basis of verbal statement given by the patient/attendant. Doctor has further admitted that patient was never treated by him and at the time of obtaining certificate, certain documents of admission etc. were shown to him alongwith x-rays. On the basis of x-ray dated 11.11.2002 from Janata X-ray Ahmad Road, Meerut certifying doctor inferred that there was mal uniting of fracture of left neck femur with femur angulation inner side. Mal united fracture of right clavicle bone outer fifth region right shoulder joint badly disturbed and head of right humorous bone going upwards i.e. not in normal position.

¶7

On the basis of such x-ray findings, doctor on examination found pain and stiffness of the right region with painful and restricted movement in right shoulder, right elbow and right wrist joint with marked waisting right upper limb mussels and certified that there is 50 disability of the upper limb and 40%

¶8

disability of the lower limb. Total disability is certified is about 50% permanent, partial in nature.

¶9

It is submitted that no firm inference could have been drawn in regard to the permanent disability when doctor himself has certified 90% permanent disability which is partial in nature. It is submitted that there is no finding of functional disability and therefore, Tribunal erred in computing 80% disability for the whole body.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents in his turn submits that in the interest of justice amount awarded by learned Claims Tribunal under different heads like pain and suffering, mental agony, transport, nutritious diet and attendant so also future treatment are grossly inadequate specially when it has come on record that his fracture of femur has been fixed with nail and prits and, therefore, appropriate sum should have been awarded under these heads too.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that computation of 80% disability by the learned Tribunal is not inconsonance with the established norms and the parameters which are taken to assess functional disability in such cases. Therefore, in my opinion, 20% disability if taken into consideration will meet the ends of justice. Learned Tribunal has considered income of the claimants at Rs.2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/- per annum, therefore, when 20% disability is taken, then loss of income will be Rs.4,800/- per annum. When 40% is added towards future prospects, then total loss of earning capacity will come out to Rs.6,720/- per annum. As age of the claimant is 29 years, therefore, multiplier of 17 will be applicable taking total compensation under the head of loss of income to Rs.1,14,240/-. Over and above this, learned Claims Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of medical expenses.

¶12

In my opinion, sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering needs to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, therefore, there will be an addition of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Another sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of future treatment and physiotherapy etc. will be in the interest of justice. Besides this, another consolidated sum of Rs.25,000/under the head of transport, attendant, nutritious diet, taking into consideration long duration of the treatment of the claimants will be in the interest of justice, therefore, claimants will be entitled to total sum of Rs.1,79,240/- against a sum of Rs.3,55,600/- awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. This amount

¶13

will also carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the claim petition as has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶14

In above terms, appeal is disposed of .

¶15

Let the record of Tribunal be sent back. Order Date :- 1.2.2021 Ravi/-

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surendra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surendra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Raj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sumaiya Vs Ehteyshamul Haq and 4 Others

Veena Devi Vs Ramakant and Another

Narain Singh @ Shiv Narain Singh Vs Smt. Suman Devi

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vipin Behari Srivastava and Others

Smt. Sunita Srivastava and Another Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Aother