AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUNIL GAUR, J.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned two appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
The above-captioned first appeal is by the Insurer, who seeks reduction in the quantum of compensation, and in the above-captioned second appeal,
the Injured seeks enhancement of compensation.
Impugned Award of 13th January, 2015 grants compensation of Rs14,05,686/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the Claimant-Injured on account of
serious injuries sustained by Smt. Sangeeta Jain aged 36 years in the vehicular accident on 1st March, 2012. The facts as culled out from the
impugned Award are as under :- “The brief facts of the case are that on 01.03.2012 at about 05.30 p.m., petitioner, who was standing on a road
side near Geeta Colony flyover with her son Shubham Jain, was hit by a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-5ST-0352, driven by respondent no. 1
at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries and was taken to GTB Hospital;
that a case FIR No. 70/12, u/sec. 279/337 IPC was registered at P.S Geeta Colony against respondent no.1.â€
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) has relied upon the evidence of Injured (PW-1) and on
the evidence of Dr. Suraj Bansal (PW-2) who has proved the Disability Certificate (Ex. PW-2/A) of Smt. Sangeeta Jain and has rendered the
impugned Award while taking the functional disability of Smt. Sangeeta Jain as 60% whereas the permanent disability suffered by her, as per the
Disability Certificate is 87%. ‘Loss of future incomeâ€has been assessed by the Tribunal while taking the income of the Injured on minimum wages
of an unskilled workman and after making addition of 50% towards ‘future prospectsâ€and by applying the multiplier of 15. Accordingly, ‘loss of
future incomeâ€assessed by the Tribunal is Rs10,78,272/-. The break-up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under :
1 Towards future loss of income Rs. 10,78,272.00
2 Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 80,000.00
3 Towards servant/attendant for 6 months Rs. 10,000.00
4 Towards conveyance and special diet Rs20,000.00
5 Towards medical bills Rs 37,478.00
6 Towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life Rs50,000.00
7 Towards disfigurement Rs50,000.00
8 Towards Future loss of Medical Expenses Rs 40,000.00
9 Towards loss of Wages Rs 39,936.00 Total Rs 14,05,686.00
Learned counsel for insurer submits that in view of recent decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, addition of 40% towards ‘future prospectsâ€ought to be made, whereas the Tribunal has added 50%. So, it is submitted that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal needs to be suitably reduced.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the Injured submits that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and it ought to be
suitably enhanced. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the Injured that the Injured â€" Smt. Sangeeta Jain was earning her livelihood by doing the
work of stitching of clothes and so, the minimum wages of a skilled worker ought to be the basis to assess the 'loss of future income'.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the Injured that the functional disability ought to be taken to be 100% as the Tribunal has evaluated the status
of the Injured by noting that she is unable to respond properly due to impairment and she takes time to respond. It is pointed out that in paragraph No.
18 of the impugned Award the Tribunal has noted that the Injured has pain in her lower limb and is unable to squat. So, it is submitted that the quantum
of compensation granted needs to be enhanced while taking the functional disability of the Injured to be 100%.
Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the Injured upon Supreme Court's decision in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors., AIR 2013
SC 3429, to submit that the Injured who had suffered disability to the extent of 30% has been awarded compensation of Rs9 lacs under the head of
‘loss of amenities and enjoyment of lifeâ€, and so, the compensation under the head of ‘loss of amenities and enjoyment of lifeâ€, needs to be
enhanced from Rs50,000/- to Rs2 lacs in light of Supreme Court decision in Rekha Jain (supra). It is pointed by learned counsel for the Injured that the
attendant charges of Rs10,000/- only for a period of six months is wholly inadequate and it needs to be suitably enhanced. Enhancement of
compensation under the heads of ‘disfigurement and towards future medical expensesâ€is also sought. Thus, it is submitted that the quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal ought to be substantially enhanced.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I find that in view of Supreme Court’s decision in
Pranay Sethi (supra), addition towards “future prospectsâ€has to be 40% and not 50% as awarded by the Tribunal. Since there is no tangible proof
regarding qualification or income of Injured, therefore, I find that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of Injured on minimum wages of an
unskilled worker.
Regarding assessment of functional disability, I find that the Tribunal has undertaken personal evaluation of Injured and while taking note of her
memory impairment, the nature of injuries suffered by her and her Disability Certificate (Ex. PW-2/A), the functional disability has been rightly
assessed to be 60%. In the considered opinion of this Court, the functional disability of Injured cannot be considered to be 100%, as Injured in her
evidence has claimed that she is unable to walk properly after the accident in question and the vision of her eyes has been also reduced and that she
cannot speak properly.
In case of permanent disability, the basic principles for awarding of compensation, as reiterated by Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok
Kumar and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 330, have to be kept in mind and in light of the ground realities, absence of documentary evidence by itself would
not justify reduction in the quantum of compensation. However, to seek enhancement of compensation, tangible evidence is required. Reliance placed
upon Supreme Court’s decision in Rekha Jain (supra) has to be considered in the context in which the said decision has been rendered. Upon
doing so, I find that it was a case of a TV actor and in the said decision, the quantum of compensation granted under various heads was found to be
deficient and thus was suitably enhanced. Instant case is of a housewife and is thus not comparable with the case of Rekha Jain (supra).
While taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by Injured, I find that the compensation of Rs80,000/- granted to her under the head
of “pain and sufferingâ€by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced to Rs1 lac. Similarly, the “attendant chargesâ€of Rs10,000/- for six months
granted by the Tribunal also needs to be enhanced to Rs50,000/-. In light of the evidence of Injured, I find that the compensation of Rs50,000/- granted
on account of “disfigurementâ€to her by the Tribunal is reasonable. However, the compensation of Rs50,000/- granted to Injured under the head of
“loss of amenities and enjoyment of lifeâ€is inadequate and is accordingly enhanced to Rs1 lac. In the face of evidence of Injured, I find that the
compensation of Rs40,000/- granted to her under the head of “future medical expensesâ€by the Tribunal is inadequate and as such, it is enhanced
to Rs1 lac. However, the compensation granted to Injured by the Tribunal under other heads is found to be adequate.
In light of the aforesaid, while taking the income of Injured to be Rs6,656/- per month and upon adding 40% towards “future prospectsâ€and by
applying multiplier of 15, “future loss of incomeâ€is re-assessed as under:- Rs9,318/- (Rs6,656/-+Rs2,662/-) x 12 x 15 x 0.60= Rs10,06,344/-
The total compensation payable to Injured is re-calculated as under: -
1 Towards future loss of income Rs10,06,344.00
2 Towards pain and sufferings Rs 1,00,000.00
3 Towards servant/attendant for 6 months Rs 50,000.00
4 Towards conveyance and special diet Rs 20,000.00
5 Towards medical bills Rs 37,478.00
6 Towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life Rs1,00,000.00
7 Towards disfigurement Rs 50,000.00
8 Towards Future loss of Medical Expenses Rs1,00,000.00
9 Towards loss of Wages Rs. 39,936.00 Total Rs.15,03,758.00
Consequentially, compensation of Rs14,05,686/- granted by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs15,03,758/- and it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.
The Insurer shall deposit the compensation as per this judgment within a period of six weeks from today. Thereafter, the reassessed compensation of
Rs15,03,758/-, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be released forthwith to Injured in the manner and ratio as indicated in impugned Award. Statutory
deposit be refunded to Insurer as per Rules.
The above-captioned two appeals and the pending application are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.