Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alka Sharma & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Jul 2018MAC.APP./214/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the appeal against the compensation awarded to a lawyer injured in a vehicular accident. The court upheld the high court on the future loss of income after applying a precedent. It directed the release of the awarded amount.

What did the court decide?

The call for the payment of the compensation has been directed to be paid forthwith to the respondent.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Alka Sharma & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: July 12, 2018

¶2

- MAC.APP. 214/2017 & C.M.No. 9057/2017

¶3

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Manu Shahalia, Advocate

¶4

Versus

¶5

ALKA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Respondent No.1 in person

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶7

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶8

Impugned Award of 2^nd March, 2016 grants compensation of `14,29,561/- with interest @ 9% per annum to respondent-injured- Alka Sharma, aged 50 years, on account of grievous injury suffered by her in a vehicular accident, which took place on 12^th September, 2014. The facts as noticed in the impugned Award are as under:-

¶9

“Brief facts of the case are that on 12.9.2014 the petitioner was going from Supreme Court to Delhi High Court and at about 4:00 PM when she reached in front of India Gate, Shershah Suri Marg, New Delhi, in the meantime one Alto car bearing no. UP 21 AU 2310 being driven in rash and negligent manner by R-1, came from wrong side and hit the car of the petitioner with great force as a result of which she suffered severe crushed injuries on her right hand. The petitioner was taken to RML hospital.”

¶10

To render the impugned Award, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) has relied upon evidence of injured- Alka Sharma ; Discharge Summary of Sir Ganga

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

MAC.APP. 214/2017

¶13

Ram Hosptial (Ex. PW2/2) and Disability Certificate (EX. PW1/1) , which indicates 77% permanent physical disability in relation to right upper limb. On the strength of evidence recorded, impugned Award of 2^nd March, 2016 has been rendered.

¶14

Vide order of 8^th October, 2016, the Tribunal has modified the impugned Award and has granted compensation of 32,09,400/- towards _“future loss of income”_ to the injured. Thereafter, again vide order of 21<sup>st</sup> December, 2016, the compensation under this head has been further modified and reduced to 27,81,480/- as while passing the impugned Award, the age of injured was inadvertently taken to be 36 years, whereas she was 50 years on the date of accident.

¶15

Thus, the breakup of compensation awarded by Tribunal to the injured is as under:-

¶16

1.	Medicines and treatment	`3,52,391/-
2.	Loss of income	`2,97,170/-
3.	Loss of income on account of disability / amenities of life	`2,00,000/-
4.	Pain & Suffering	`3,00,000/-
5.	Conveyance and Special diet	`80,000/-
6.	Attendant charges	`50,000/-
7.	Marriage prospects	`50,000/-
8.	Disfigurement of body	`1,00,000/-
9.	Future loss of income	`27,81,480/-
	Total	`42,11,041/-

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

MAC.APP. 214/2017

¶19

Learned counsel for Insurer assails impugned Award on the ground that income of the injured has been taken into consideration to assess the “loss of income” , whereas her net income ought to have been considered. It is next submitted that the functional disability of 30% assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and infact, the functional disability ought to be 10%. So, it is submitted that the awarded compensation deserves to be reduced.

¶20

On the contrary, the injured who is lawyer by profession has choosen to argue in person and she supports the impugned Award and maintains that the compensation granted is just and proper and no case for reduction is made out. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Medical Board’s Report (Ex. PW1/1) to point out that right hand of injured is dysfunctional with loss of all functions, except hook grasp. It is submitted by the injured that the income has been rightly taken by the Tribunal in view of Income Tax Return placed on record. So, it is submitted that no case for reduction of compensation granted by the Tribunal is made out and hence, this appeal deserves dismissal.

¶21

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence on record, I find that the Income Tax Return of the year 2014-15 reveals that the gross income of the injured is 7,13,206/- and the tax deduction is of 56,963/-. Meaning thereby, that the “net income” of injured is:-

¶22

7,13,206/- minus 56,963/= `6,56,243/-

¶23

As regards “functional disability” is concerned, I find that the Tribunal has assessed it on the lower side. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Arvind Pathak Vs. Parshant Kumar & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2675 has assessed the “functional disability” to be 70% in a case MAC.APP. 214/2017 Page 3 of 4

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

where the permanent disability of the right hand was assessed to be 69% by the Medical Board of Safdarjung Hosptial, New Delhi. In the face of afore referred evidence on record, the “future loss of income” due to disability suffered by injured is reassessed as under:-

¶26

Since no cross-objections have been filed, therefore, “future loss of income” , as determined by the Tribunal is maintained. Compensation granted under the other heads is also found to be reasonable.

¶27

In view of above, this Court finds that the compensation granted to respondent-injured is justified and no case for reduction of compensation awarded is made out. This appeal and pending application are accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to forthwith release the amount of compensation to respondent-injured in terms of impugned Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.

¶28

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶29

JULY 12, 2018 r

¶30

Page 4 of 4

¶31

MAC.APP. 214/2017

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alka Sharma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alka Sharma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dinesh Sharma and Ors.

Master Ankit Sharma Vs Harish Batra & Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Brij Kishore Mishra & Ors.

Cholamandalam Ms General Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Kishan & Ors.

Sunita Trehan & Anr. Vs Visharat & Ors.

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar