Dismissed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Ram & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Mar 2017FAO/296/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance against an award of Rs.10.55 lakhs to an injured employee. The Court upheld the Employees' Compensation Commissioners order awarding 100% loss of earning capacity, rejecting the appellant's claim that it should be 65% based on partial amputation.

What did the court decide?

The award was enhanced to Rs.13,48,989/-, adjusted into Fixed Deposits for part of the amount, and the balance released to the respondent's bank account.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shiv… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~4

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 15^th March, 2017

¶4

- FAO 296/2016 & CM 24218/2016

¶5

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD...... Appellant Through: Mr.A.K. Soni, Advocate versus

¶6

SHIV RAM & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate along with respondent No.1 in person.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶9

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶10

The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 8^th March, 2016 whereby compensation of Rs.10,55,760/- has been awarded to respondent no.1.

¶11

On 15^th April, 2013 at about 1.00 a.m., respondent no.1 was driving vehicle No.DL-1K-5350 under the employment of respondent no.2 when he met with an accident at Bhopani village near Pula, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana which resulted in grievous injuries. The right leg of respondent no.1 was amputated at below knee level which resulted in 65% permanent disability relating to the right leg. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation took the permanent disability of respondent no.1 as 100% and awarded Rs.10,55,760/- to respondent no.1.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the

¶13

FAO 296/2016

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

hearing that the accident did not arise in the course of the employment. It is further submitted that the loss of earning capacity be taken as 65% instead of 100%.

¶16

Respondent no.1 is present in Court and he is unable to drive after the accident in view of the 65% permanent disability. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation taking the loss of earning capacity as 100%. So far as the relationship of employment is concerned, respondent no.2 has admitted the accident arose out of and during the course of the employment of respondent no.1.

¶17

The appeal and pending application are dismissed.

¶18

The appellant has deposited Rs.13,48,989/with the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation is directed to instruct the concerned bank to keep Rs.12 lakh in 120 FDRs of Rs.10,000/- each for the period of 1 months to 120 months respectively with cumulative interest.

¶19

The balance amount, after keeping Rs.12 lakhs in FDRs, be released to respondent no.1 by transferring the same to his savings bank account No.729702010001674 with Union Bank of India, G.T.B. Nagar, 9-Hakikat Nagar, GTB Nagar, New Delhi-110009 [IFSC Code UBIN0572977].

¶20

All the original FDRs shall be retained by concerned bank. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and the maturity amount be furnished to respondent no.1.

¶21

The maturity amount of the FDRs along with interest shall be transferred to the savings bank account of respondent no.1 with Union Bank of India, G.T.B. Nagar, 9-Hakikat Nagar, GTB Nagar, New Delhi-110009.

¶22

FAO 296/2016

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

No cheque book or debit card be issued to respondent no.1 by Union Bank of India without permission of this Court. However, in case, the debit card/cheque book have already been issued, Union Bank of India, G.T.B. Nagar, 9-Hakikat Nagar, GTB Nagar, New Delhi-110009 shall cancel the debit card and/or cheque book.

¶25

No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted without the permission of this Court.

¶26

Respondent no.1 is at liberty to approach this Court for release of further amount in case of any financial exigency.

¶27

The record of the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation be returned back forthwith to enable the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation to comply with this judgment.

¶28

Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court.

¶29

MARCH 15, 2017 dk

¶30

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶31

FAO 296/2016

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Ram & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Ram & Anr.

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

Thakur Dass Kumbnani Vs Jagdish Kumar Kumbnani & Ors.

Rsr Retail Private Limited & Anr. Vs Mukesh Trehan

Delhi Multi Story Building Employees Congress through Its President R.K. Nagar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Swaran Katyal Vs Surinder Pal Kapoor & Ors.

Suresh Kumar Vs Ltg India Pvt. Limited

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sarupi Devi & Ors.