The High Court allowed an insurance company's appeal against a Claims Tribunal award in a motor accident case. The court reduced the total compensation by setting aside duplicate awards for attendant and loss charges, ordering a refund of the excess.
Appellant ordered to refund `2,69,560/ along with interest. Compensation quantum adjusted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1st March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 708/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.L.K.Tyagi, Advocate
versus
GURMEET SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.S.Juneja, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
| Compensation under different | Awarded by the Claims |
|---|---|
| heads | Tribunal |
| Treatment Expenses | `2,07,338/- |
| Pain & Sufferings | `75,000/- |
| Special Diet | `25,000/- |
Page 1 of 5
MAC APP 708/2011
| Conveyance | `9,190/- |
|---|---|
| Attendant’s Charges | `2,61,000/- |
| Future attendant’s Charges | `8,64,000/- |
| Loss of Income | `6,47,800/- |
| Disability | `14,39,000/- |
| Total | `.35,28,328/- |
2,61,000/- and the future attendant charges amounting to 8,64,000/- have been awarded. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 was awarded a sum of 6,47,800/- towards loss of income for 79 months at the same time he was awarded a compensation of 14,39,000/- towards loss of earning capacity on account of disability.Page 2 of 5
MAC APP 708/2011
Though the permanent disability has been assessed to be only 75% but since the First Respondent is unable to move and there are hardly any chance that he can move or in any case attend to his work the permanent disability should have been considered as affecting 100% loss of his earning capacity.
7,000/- per month. Thereafter he joined Queen Distilleries and Bottles Pvt. Ltd. at a salary of 8,200/-. On the date of the accident he was working in Queen Distilleries and Bottles Pvt. Ltd. company. It is evident that the Respondent No.1 had good future prospects. He was in stable employment and shifted to Queen Distilleries and Bottles Pvt. Ltd. for better prospects. Although, the Claims Tribunal erred in granting him compensation on account of loss of income and on account of loss of earning capacity separately but when he had suffered permanent disability which incapacitated him to carry out any work he ought to have been awarded compensation on the basis of his actual income plus future prospects on the date of the accident. Similarly, the attendant charges ought to have been granted on the basis of multiplier since the date of the accident. After deducting a sum of 8400/- towards income tax, adding 50% towards future prospects and adopting a multiplier of 15 suitable to the age of Respondent No.1 the compensation on account of loss of earning capacity would come to 20,25,000/- Rs.(8200x12-Page 3 of 5
MAC APP 708/2011
8400(income tax)+50%x15). The compensation on account of attendant charges on applying similar multiplier of 15 on the wages of a skilled worker on the date of accident i.e. 3318 would come to 5,97,240/- (` 3318x12x15).
2,50,000/for having taken Physiotherapy but the same were declined by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that PW-6 Dr.Sushil Singh, Senior Resident, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation was silent about this. The bills having been proved the same ought to have been allowed. Moreover, the Court could have taken a judicial notice of the fact that a person who has suffered Hemiplegia needs constant physiotherapy to move his body parts. I would, therefore, award a further sum of 50,000/- towards future treatment and physiotherapy.| Compensation under | Awarded by the Claims | Awarded by this Court |
|---|---|---|
| different heads | Tribunal | |
| Treatment Expenses | `2,07,338/- | `2,07,338/- |
| Pain & Sufferings | `75,000/- | `75,000/- |
| Special Diet | `25,000/- | `25,000/- |
MAC APP 708/2011 Page 4 of 5
| Conveyance | `9,190/- | `9,190/- |
|---|---|---|
| Attendant’s Charges | `2,61,000/- | Nil |
| Future attendant’s Charges | `8,64,000/- | `5,97,240/- |
| Loss of Income | `6,47,800/- | Nil |
| Disability | `14,39,000/- | Nil |
| Loss of Earning Capacity | Nil | `20,25,000/- |
| Loss of Amenities | Nil | `20,000/- |
| Physiotherapy as per Bill | Nil | `2,50,000/- |
| Future treatment and | Nil | 50,000/- |
| Physiotherapy | ||
| Total | Rs.35,28,328/- | `32,58,768/-, |
8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE
MARCH 01, 2012 mr
5 of 5
MAC APP 708/2011
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co Ltd
Gurmeet Singh
G.P. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court