Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
SIRAJUDDIN - Appellant
Versus
OM PRAKASH & ORS.(UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD) - Respondents
MAC.APP. 387 of 2018
Decided On : 18-01-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Varun Sarin, Mr. Aakash Kundra, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair and reasonable compensation for victims of accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the need to consider all aspects of the victim's losses, including functional disability, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disfiguration.
Headnote:
Compensation - Enhancement - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2445
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount due to the amputation of his left limb resulting in 85% permanent disability. The appellant argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate and urged for enhancement based on the functional disability and loss of earning capacity.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Claims Tribunal had not awarded compensation for the artificial limb and had assessed the functional disability and loss of earning capacity inadequately. The Court directed the Committee to examine the appellant and advise on the artificial limb, resulting in an enhanced compensation amount of Rs.15,38,552/-, along with interest at 9% per annum.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, specifically related to the artificial limb, functional disability, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disfiguration.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 166, and the precedent set in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2445, which highlighted the importance of fair and reasonable compensation for victims of accidents.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the compensation award was enhanced to Rs.15,38,552/-. The appellant was not entitled to interest on the amount awarded for the artificial limb, and interest at 9% per annum was awarded on the enhanced amount from the date of the claim petition. The respondent was directed to deposit the enhanced award amount with interest, and specific instructions were given regarding the handling of the compensation amount.
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.6,03,523/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant is seeking enhancement of the award amount.
2. The accident dated 30th March, 2017 resulted in the amputation of left limb above the knee of the appellant. The appellant remained hospitalized from 30th March, 2017 to 17th April, 2017. The amputation of left lower limb resulted in 85% permanent disability to the appellant relating to his left lower limb.
3. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.2,15,000/- towards the medical expenses, Rs.15,000/-towards conveyance, special diet and attendant charges, Rs.57,408/- towards loss of income during treatment, Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, Rs.10,000/- towards disfiguration, Rs.2,41,115/- towards loss of future earning capacity/future income. The total compensation awarded is Rs.6,03,523/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the artificial limb. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has taken the functional disability as 42% whereas the loss of earning capacity of the appellant is 100%. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the Claims Tribunal has awarded grossly inadequate compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and disfiguration. Reliance is placed on Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2445. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under other heads is on lower side and warrants enhancement.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the functional disability of the appellant as 42% which does not warrant any enhancement. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the other heads is also fair and reasonable.
6. Vide order dated 30th May, 2018, this Court directed the Committee appointed by this Court in MAC.APP.1134/2017 to examine the appellant and advise about the artificial limb to be fixed, including the name of the supplier as well as the cost of the artificial limb.
7. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned amicus curiae in MAC.APP.1134/2017 has handed over the report of the Committee which is taken on record. As per the report of the Committee, the appellant has been recommended for artificial limb costing Rs.2,92,772/- from Ideal Artificial Limb Solution. The aforesaid artificial limb has a life of five years and would require repair/maintenance thereafter, which would further incur the cost of approx. Rs.30,000/-. The appellant is awarded Rs.3,22,772/-(Rs.2,92,772 + Rs.30,000) towards cost of artificial limb.
8. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/-towards loss of amenities of life and Rs.10,000/- towards disfiguration which are on lower side. The compensation towards pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation for loss of amenities of life is enhanced from Rs.25,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation for disfiguration is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejection and unhappiness in future life, etc..
9. The Claims Tribunal has taken the functional disability of the appellant as 42%. The appellant is present in Court on a wheelchair and he submits that he was working as a salesman in spectacles shop at the time of the accident but is unable to do any work after the accident. The present functional disability is almost 100%. However, the functional disability after installation of the artificial limb is taken as 65%. The Claims Tribunal has taken minimum wages of Rs.9,568/- whereas
