Delhi District Court
Second Address : C/O. Kartar Singh Ka ... vs ) Sh. Lal Singh S/O. Sh. Mallah Singh on 17 May, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. MALHOTRA, ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(MACT Case No. 128/11)
Naresh s/o Sh. Ranveer
R/o H. No. 307,
Village Kapoorpur,
Distt. Mainpuri, UP
Second Address : C/o. Kartar Singh Ka Makan,
Village Kundli,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana
-------------Petitioner
Versus
1) Sh. Lal Singh s/o. Sh. Mallah Singh
R/o. House no. 37, Lakha Singh Gali,
Village Jhangola, PS Alipur, Delhi
2) Sh. Jai Karan s/o. Sh. Jage Ram
R/o. House no. 167, Bharpur Wali Gali,
Village Tajapur Kalan, PS Alipur, Delhi
3) M/s. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Unit No. 402 & 403, GD ITL Tower,
Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampaura, Delhi-34
---------Respondents
Date of institution---08.04.2011
Date of decision----- 17.05.2012
-2-
(Application u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act
for grant of compensation)
******************************************
JUDGMENT:-
1. Petitioner aged about 36 years filed the present claim petition claiming therein a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs alongwith interest on the ground that on 23.03.2011 he alongwith his friend was travelling his motorcycle and was coming from Biswa Mill to plot no. 88, HSIDC Rai, Distt. Sonipat and when the victim took a left turn at about 4.30 p.m. to approach the factory in the meantime one truck bearing no. HR-69-4919 loaded with mud behind the motorcycle also took a turn on the same side in fast and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from the back as a result of which due to great impact petitioner was thrown away from the motorcycle and driver Naresh (of motorcycle) alongwith motorcycle got dragged at a long distance. As a result of this petitioner sustained grievous injuries and later suffered permanent disability as his left leg got imputed and right leg also received grievous injuries. A criminal case under section 279/337 IPC was registered against respondent no.1 vide FIR No. 72/11 in police station Rai, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
2. Petitioner alleged that at the time of accident he was working as a labourer at factory no. 88, HSIDC Rai Sonipat, Haryana and he was getting Rs. 8,000/- per month. Further stated that due to this accident he has suffered permanent disability due to which he would not able to drive motorcycle, lost his job in the said factory and he alongwith his family is suffering lot of financial problem. He claimed sum of Rs. 30 lakhs alongwith interest as compensation from the respondents being driver and -3- owner and insurance company under various pecuniary and non pecuniary heads.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement submitting therein that R-1 was driving his vehicle in vigilant and cautious manner within the prescribed speed limit following all traffic rules and regulations but it were the petitioner and his companion who were driving the motorcycle in a very fast and negligent manner. Respondent no. 3/insurance company admitted that offending was insured with it but it tried to avoid its liability on some routine technical grounds.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 09.08.2011 by my Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether Sh. Naresh suffered injuries due to road accident on 23.03.2011 at about 4:30 p.m. at HSIDC Rai, PS: Rai, Sonipat within the jurisdiction of PS: Rai, Distt. Sonipat due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-69-4919 being driven by respondent no.1 which had hit the motorcycle no. DL-8SR- 7997 on which petitioner was travelling? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what an extent and from which of the respondents? OPP
3. Relief
5. Petitioner examined himself as PW1 and proved documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/16, PW2 Sh. Kapil, Sr. Executive Material, Endoite India Ltd., PW3 Dr. Jitender Singh and PW4 Sh. Ashutosh Burman. Respondents did not produce any witness in support of their defence.
-4-6. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the record. My decision on the above mentioned issues is as under:
Issue no.1:-
7. The proof required in MACT claim petition are less than the proof required to criminal offence or a civil case. The principles to be followed in the case of motor accident claims has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in case cited as Renu Bala Paul and Ors. vs. bani Chakraborty and Ors. 1999 ACJ 634 wherein it is held that:
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.
In N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal & Ors. AIR 1980 SCC 1354, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some -5- doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour".
8. The averments made in the claim petition about the manner of accident have already been discussed above. The attested copy of criminal case record for the offences punishable u/s 279/337 IPC against the respondent no. 1/driver has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner, which reveals that he was prosecuted by the police for causing injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and entered into witness box and in his affidavit of evidence disclosed how and in which manner accident had taken place. He specifically blamed respondent no. 1 for driving offending truck in rash and negligent manner and hitting the injured. No effective cross-examination of the PW-1 had taken place and I find nothing in his statement to discard his version. It is also not the case of respondents that they had any previous enmity with the injured or IO or knew them prior to the date of accident, so possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 in criminal case is also ruled out. I find no ground to disbelieve the statement of PW-1 which is supported by criminal case record so it is held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by respondent no. 1 by which the petitioner had suffered injuries and there was no negligence on the part of the injured. These issues are thus decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
-6-Issue no.2:-
9. Petitioner was taken to the hospital after sustaining grievous injuries on 23.03.2011 and injuries suffered 60% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has observed as under:
"The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Some time they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term "compensation" used in section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who -7- preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Sections 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of the compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited MANU/SC/0146/1995: (1995) 1 SCC 551, this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) - All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance, (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial, (iii) other material loss. So for non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life".-8-
In the same case, the court further observed:
"In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards".
In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009: (2009) 6 SCC 1, the three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, the Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act:
"At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-...- vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity".
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Manu/SC/1303/2009: (2009) 13 SCC 422, this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified -9- the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted below:
The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Limited Manu/SC/0777/2010: (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed:
"We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as ho was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered".
In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar Manu/SC/1018/2010: (2011) 1 SCC 343, the court considered some of the precedents and held:
"The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object -10- of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as for as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and hie inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Court in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident".
The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising;-11-
a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
c) Future medical expenses.
Non Pecuniary damages (General damages):
a) Damages for pain suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
b) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
c) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), iii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
We shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable or he is entitled to enhanced compensation under any of the following heads:
i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg.
ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
iii)Future medical expenses.
iv)Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident.
v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage.
vi)Loss of expectation of life.-12-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has further observed as under:
"In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, the court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record."
"After the aforesaid judgment, the cost of living as also the cost of artificial limbs and expenses likely to be incurred for periodical replacement of such limb has substantially increased. Therefore, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant for future treatment. If this amount is deposited in fixed deposit, the interest accruing on it will take care of the cost of artificial limb, fees of the doctor and other ancillary expenses."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the Courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the Appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met awarding him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of life with one artificial leg. The Appellant can be -13- expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life."
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
Loss of income
11. Petitioner alleged that at the time of accident he was a labourer but filed no proof of his income. Petitioner stated that due to accident he remained out of job initially for six months but subsequently because of injuries he suffered permanent disability and could not able to drive motorcycle, had lost job in the said factory and his family and himself were suffering a lot of financial problems. In such circumstances, the petitioner is presumed to be lost his earning for the sum of Rs. 6084/- per month in the category of unskilled worker as per Minimum Wages Schedule. Thus I am granting the loss of income of 6 months only.
Petitioner is thus entitled to sum of Rs. 36,504/- towards loss of income (Rs. 6084/- X 6).
Loss of future income
12. The petitioner/injured was a self employed person. He was aged about 36 years at the time of accident. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sajha Vs. National Insurance Co. 2010 ACJ 627 and New India Assurance Co. Vs. Raja Ram MAC. APP. No. 175/06 decided on 25.8.2009 held that keeping in view the trend of increase of minimum wages of semi skilled worker from time to time and rises in price index and inflation, it can be said that minimum wages of unskilled worker would get almost double over a period of next ten years and thus future prospects -14- should be given upon minimum wages also. In this regard the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled Shiddhi Gopal Dixit Vs Siya Ram & Others reported in 2012 ACJ 165. Thus applying the formula given in these judgments, the monthly income of the petitioner can be held at Rs. 9,126/- (Rs. 6084/- + 50%).
As per the case of injured, he is completely disabled in relation to his right lower limb as a case of below knee amputation (right) to the extent of 60%. He is not working because being not capable of working and in that very nature of the things the functional disability is 100% more than 70% physical disability. Hence disability of injured in relation to right lower limb to the extent of 60%, is assessed to 90% functional disability. Counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Raviraj Udupa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2012 ACJ 286 decided on 16.08.2011.
It is the claim of the petitioner that at the time of accident he as about 36 years of age with good health and physique and was earning more than Rs. 8,000/- per month and due to said accident the injured lost his income and got 60% which amounts to complete functional disability of 90%, permanent disability as the petitioner would not be in a position to travel in a car and there is no question of driving by him. Moreover, he spent on his treatment and the same is still going on. His job profile has also been hampered/affected badly due to this accident. He is having his family to look after. He is still spending on his treatment and compelled to travel by auto or taxi to cover the distance and the said expenses will be a permanent expenses in future. The life of the petitioner has become hell due to the conduct of respondent No.1 & 2 besides severe economic loss. The income of petitioner has also affected and he would not be able to live a normal life and most likely he would be entirely dependent upon his parents/brothers and other relations. However, I take the disability to 90% -15- functional disability as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 STPL (Web) CC Cases 12 SC.
Petitioner in the petition described his age as 36 years on the date of accident as per the election I-Card Ex.PW1/1 of the injured. Hence in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 15 has to be applied to count loss of earning capacity.
Petitioner is completely disabled in relation to right lower limb as case of below knee amputation (right) to the extent of 90% and filed estimate for artificial leg Ex.PW1/2 and payment receipt Ex.PW1/3. Medical record shows that he visited the doctors from time to time. In such situation, I am of the view that petitioner is required to be reimbursed the amount towards loss of income for the period of one year which comes to Rs. 1,09,512/-(Rs. 9,126/- x12).
As no deduction from income has to be taken towards personal expenses in case of injury as per decision of Delhi High Court in Bimla Vs. Gopal MAC. APP No. 1028/2006 decided on 22.3.2010 so the total loss of future income or earning capacity comes to Rs. as per the formula (9126 X 12 X 15 X 90%). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss of future income at Rs.14,78,412/- (in round figure).
Medical expenses and future medical expenses
13. The petitioner has filed bill for total amounting Rs. 34,213/- on record to point out that he had incurred any amount upon his treatment which was verified by insurance company and found to be correct. Further petitioner has suffered permanent disability due to injuries sustained in the accident and his entire life has ruined and will lead a crippled life in future. In support of the disability assessed in respect of injuries sustained by petitioner he produced PW3 Dr. Jitender Singh. Whereas PW4 Sh.
-16-Ashutosh Burman had brought the original treatment record of patient and stated that his company has provided artificial leg to injured and by experience he stated that life of substance of artificial limb is for two years and patient will require the change of said artificial limb or its components after every two years. As such he is granted a sum of Rs. 34,213/- against medical expenses and Rs. 30,000/- towards future medical expenses.
Special diet and conveyance charges
14. Petitioner has not given any amount incurred towards special diet and conveyance but he claimed sum of Rs. 36,000/- as attendant charges. Thus keeping in view the nature of injuries, hospital admission etc. and after taking judicial notice that normally in case of sickness and serious injury, a special diet in the form of healthy food, juices, milk etc. is provided instead of or in addition to the normal food and hospital visits must have taken place in some conveyance so I am of the view that maximum petitioner can be paid lump sum Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges and Rs. 36,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain, suffering, inconvenience, shock and frustration etc.
15. As per the case of Govind Yadav it is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person suffered permanent disability as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets out of grievous injuries, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the Courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the Appellant was a young boy of 36 -17- years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and frustration etc. caused due to injuries suffered in accident.
Loss of amenities and shortening of life
16. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of life with 60% disability. The Appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and shortening of life as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in case Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, III (2007) ACC 676 and Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited.
17. In view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner by holding that he is entitled to get the following total compensation from the respondent/insurance company only:
A) Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
a) Medical bills ----------------------------------------------Rs. 34,213/-
b) Future medical expenses-----------------------------Rs. 30,000/-
c) Special diet------------------------------------------------Rs. 25,000/-
d) Conveyance charges-----------------------------------Rs. 10,000/-
e) Attendant charges---------------------------------------Rs. 36,000/-
f) Loss of income --------------------------------------------Rs. 36,504/-
g) Loss of future income-----------------------------------Rs.14,78,412/-
-18-B) Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):
a) Pain, suffering, inconvenience, shock-----------------Rs. 1,00,000/- and frustration etc.
b) Loss of amenities and shortening of life--------------Rs. 1,50,000/-
---------------------------
Total Rs. 19,00,129/- Issue no.3 (Relief):-
18. Respondent no. 3 insurance company could not bring on record any evidence to point out that it is not liable to pay compensation amount as assessed by the court or any term or condition of the insurance policy was breached by the insured or it has any limited liability. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3 alone becomes entitled to pay entire compensation amount.
19. On the basis of findings given above, present petition is disposed off and respondent no. 3 insurance company is directed to pay sum of Rs. 19,00,129/- to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 08.04.2011 till this amount is fully paid in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhudia Devi & Ors. Reported as 2010 ACJ 2045.
Copy of this judgment be given to petitioner and counsel for respondent no.3 Insurance Company and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (D.K. MALHOTRA)
Court on 17.05.2012 JUDGE, MACT (OUTER-II)
DELHI