Shri Sital Singh vs Shri Ranjit Singh and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident that took place on 31.12.1991. The claimant was an employee in the Health Department of UT, drawing salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. In the accident, the claimant had suffered fractures of the 5th mata-carpal bone of left hand, upper end of humerus bone and fibula of the left leg besides other injuries. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. I find the assessment to be grossly low and rework the compensation under the following heads:-

There shall be an award of Rs. 71,000/- and the additional amount secured through this award shall attract interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment.

I have taken the fact that the claimant had been admitted in the hospital on 31.12.1991 to 05.01.1992 and, therefore, I have provided modestly for the attendant charges, special diet and transportation. The counsel for the appellant would seek for assessment to loss of future income taking the disability, as assessed, as also resulting in equal percentage of loss of earning capacity. I cannot provide for any such loss of future earning where there has been fractures which have united. If there has been limitation of movements or any inconvenience, it has to be taken only as the loss of amenities in his life. The doctor''s own evidence that he will be handicapped in performing his duty must be taken as needless exaggeration, for, I cannot see a productive loss apart from the inconvenience of having to suffer for restriction of movements of his limb. I have, therefore, provided for a larger sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of amenities instead of Rs. 20,000/- as provided by the Tribunal.

I find that the Insurance Company has been approached for settlement by the claimant through a proposal made on 27.03.2014 as per the directions of this court. The counsel for the Insurance Company has received the proposal on 31.03.2014, but has not responded with any appropriate overture for a meaningful conclusion of the dispute which was commenced 2 decades earlier. I find the conduct of the insurer to be grossly deficient and uncooperative. I impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- against the insurer.

The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

There is cross objection also at the instance of 2nd respondent who says that the vehicle had been transferred to one Nirmal Singh at the relevant time of the accident. There is hardly a reason to feel aggrieved since the ultimate dispensation by the Tribunal has been to latch the liability on the Insurance Company only. The assessment to compensation made in this case has been against the Insurance Company. The joint and several liability of what the Tribunal provides for must be understood only with reference to the liability on the insurer as allowing for a full indemnity against the insured. There is no scope for enforcement of the award against the insured. Even otherwise a transfer of the vehicle after the purchase when there was currency of insurance makes possible a transfer of policy of insurance as well. It is in that light that the Insurance Company itself has been made liable. The cross objection is dismissed as unnecessary.