Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Baby Raksha & Ors. – Respondents
MAC.APP. 36 of 2023 & CM APPL. 34315 of 2023
Decided On : 21-07-2023
Mr.Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R-1.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Minimum Wages, Permanent Disability - [COMPENSATION] - [MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL] - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, 168, 169] - The court discussed the assessment of compensation payable to the claimant based on the loss of earning capacity, the determination of functional permanent disability, and the rate of interest to be awarded. The court referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court to interpret the principles for determining future loss of income, permanent disability, and the appropriate rate of interest. The court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on the Notification on the minimum wages for determining the loss of income and affirmed the functional disability of the claimant as 68%. The court also modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent no.1, a child, was seriously injured in a motor accident, resulting in 68% permanent disability in her right lower limb. The Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the respondent no.1 based on the minimum wages of a graduate, which was challenged by the appellant. The court also considered the adequacy of the compensation awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, disfigurement, and loss of marriage prospects.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on the Notification on the minimum wages for determining the loss of income and affirmed the functional disability of the claimant as 68%. The court also modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum. The compensation for pain and suffering and amenities of life was enhanced to Rs.5,00,000, and for loss of marriage prospects to Rs.5,00,000. The compensation for disfigurement remained unchanged.
Issues: Assessment of compensation based on loss of earning capacity, determination of functional permanent disability, adequacy of compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, disfigurement, and loss of marriage prospects, and the rate of interest to be awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to interpret the principles for determining future loss of income, permanent disability, and the appropriate rate of interest. The court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on the Notification on the minimum wages for determining the loss of income and affirmed the functional disability of the claimant as 68%. The court also modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum.
Final Decision: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the assessment of compensation and modified the rate of interest. The compensation for pain and suffering and amenities of life was enhanced, while the compensation for disfigurement remained unchanged.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 31.10.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West-01, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT Case no.77877/16, titled Baby Raksha (Minor) v. Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
2. By way of an application, being CM Appl. No. 34315/2023, the claimant, that is, respondent no.1 has filed the cross objection seeking enhancement of the amount awarded in her favour. The same is also being considered by this order.
3. It is not in dispute in the appeal or the cross objection that on 05.03.2016, the respondent no.1 alongwith her Mausi (mother's sister) was going on foot from Indra Market to her house when a Tata 407, driven rashly and negligently, came from behind at a very high speed and hit the respondent no.1, as a result of which she was seriously injured.
4. Dr.Naresh Chandra was examined as PW-2. In his statement, he stated that the respondent no.1 suffered from 68% Permanent Disability in relation to her right lower limb. He further stated that the disability suffered by the respondent no.1 is non-progressive and not likely to improve, and on account of the disability suffered by her on her right foot and ankle joint, she would have difficulty in standing, walking, sitting on the floor, and running. He further states that the respondent no.1 can, however, do her daily routine work by her both upper limbs as she has not suffered any disability on those parts. It has also come on record that the respondent no.1 was 5 years of age on the date of the accident.
5. Based on the above facts and the evidence produced before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the respondent no.1 on account of the loss of her earning capacity basis the Minimum Wages of a graduate on the date of the accident. The first challenge of the appellant is on this account.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (2014) 14 SCC 396; Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. v. Shyam Kishore Marmu & Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 317; and Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 256, submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the minimum wages of a graduate for the purpose of determination of the loss of income. He submits that as the respondent no.1 was only a child, income should have been notionally determined and as was done in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra), the same should have been considered as Rs.25,000/- per annum.
7. He further submits that even if the minimum wages were to be considered, the same could not have been considered for what is prescribed for a graduate, as it has come on record that the Mausi/Aunt, with whom the respondent no.1 was walking, was an illiterate lady and, therefore, there was nothing on record for the learned Tribunal to presume that the respondent no.1 would go on to complete her graduation.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413; Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Namita Sekhon and Anr., (2022) 8 SCC 489; and Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 7 SCC 738, submits that the loss of future earnings have been rightly assessed on the basis of the Minimum Wages prescribed for a graduate.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
10. In Kajal (supra), the Supreme Court, in case of a young child of 12 years, disapproved of the Courts below taking notional income as only Rs.15,000/- per annum, and observed as under:
"20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs.15,000/- per a
