National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sriram and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the National Insurance Company Ltd. aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. . 13,81,835/- to the applicant/ respondent-claimant, who sustained 100% disablement on account of the accident. Shri Sanjeev Johari, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that the compensation that is awarded in the injury case should be reasonable and should not be a bonanza. Amount of Rs. . 13,81,835/- that has been awarded as compensation is highly excessive. Even if applicant-respondent had died, amount of award would not have exceeded Rs. . 9,00,000/- at any rate. Amount of Rs. . 2,00,000/- has been wrongly awarded under head of ''attendant and future treatment''. Learned Counsel argued that amount of Rs. . 40,000/- awarded on the head of ''transportation charges'' is also excessive. Even if respondent was driver, his income could not be accepted as Rs. . 4,500/- per month. This Court may, therefore, suitably reduce the amount of compensation.

Shri S.K. Sankhia, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that 2/3rd part of the body of the injured has been rendered senseless inasmuch as there is total loss of motor power in the lower limbs of the body of the injured. He has no control over 2/3rd of his body. He cannot survive without the assistance of others. He would have to now survive without the assistance of others. He would have to now forever live vegetative life. He has liability to maintain his wife and two children and that doctor has opined him to be a case of quadriplegia with 100% disablement on account of fracture of C-6 vertebra. As such, the amount of compensation cannot be said to be excessive and unreasonable accepting the income of the claimant as Rs. . 4,500/- per month in view of the fact that he was driver and the accident took place as recently in 2007. Besides, learned Counsel argued that the entire sum has been recovered and part of that amount has been invested in the F.D.R. for 5-7 years for the future welfare of the claimant.

Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award. I find, that although the compensation awarded to the claimant appears to be somewhat on higher side but in view of the fact that injuries here has sustained 100% disability inasmuch as, he has lost almost complete motor powers of his vital organs including lower limbs, he has to necessarily depend upon others. In view of the fact that his age at the relevant time was about 25 years and he may still in future need the medical care, award of Rs. . 2,00,000/- on that head does not appear to be unreasonable or excessive. Conversely, even though there is no cross-appeal, awarded of Rs. . 50,000/- towards suffering of physical pain and suffering, appears to be on lower side because the kind of disability, which the injured has sustained and pain and trauma he had to undergo and that he shall have to live the vegetative life now till he survives, being always dependent on others, therefore, cumulatively on both these heads, the amount of compensation cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive.

Coming now to the other argument, regarding awarded of amount of compensation of Rs. . 9,18,000/-. I find that learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17 by accepting income of the injured as Rs. . 4,500/- per month and on that basis computed amount of Rs. . 9,18,000/-. He was a driver it cannot be said that in the year 2007 when the accident took place, he would not be even earning 14500/- per month. Had the injured died, his 1/3rd income would have been deducted for his self-expenses. Now that he is surviving, therefore, that amount is included in the aforesaid amount and total sum apparently look like an excessive award of compensation, which in fact is not. Besides, in the present case, even if it is accepted that award is marginally on higher side, no case for interference is made out particularly when entire sum has been recovered and invested in the name of the claimants in the F.D.R. for their future welfare. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.