Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Harbans Singh & Ors on 28 March, 2014

Author: Suresh Kait

Bench: Suresh Kait

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                         Judgment delivered on: 28th March, 2014

+      MAC.APP. 394/2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD                ..... Appellant
                 Represented by: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.

                      Versus

HARBANS SINGH & ORS                       ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. for R1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 11.02.2011, whereby ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.19,08,400/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.

2. Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Ld. Tribunal wrongly computed the compensation towards future loss of income and awarded high compensation under this head. She has relied upon a case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it is held as under:

"Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for MAC.Appeal No. 394/2011 Page 1 of 4 awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."

3. Ld. Counsel submits that claimant was working as a Head Constable on the date of accident and he continued on the said post and neither sought any retirement due to the injury nor was relegated to a lower rank. Therefore, taking 30% of his salary towards future loss of income was totally uncalled for. She further submits that once it was presumed on record that there was no loss of income and the injured was continuing with the same job without any reduction of rank, 30% salary towards future loss of income is liable to be set aside.

4. Ld. Counsel further submits that Ld. Tribunal has erred in granting high compensation towards attendant charges and failed to appreciate that if the total amount of compensation granted towards attendant charges, i.e., Rs.5,04,000/- is deposited in a fixed deposit, the interest on the said amount will be more than Rs.3,000/- per month, which could be spent on attendant charges.

5. Lastly, Ld. Counsel submits that Ld. Tribunal also erred in granting compensation of Rs.2.5 Lac towards loss of amenities, enjoyment of life and pain and suffering which is liable to be set aside.

6. It is not in dispute that the claimant was 44 years of age on the date of accident. He was a Head Constable in Delhi Police and for further promotion, medical fitness is required. It is not the case where the service of the claimant remains only for 2-3 years and he was not eligible for the higher promotion. In all the 'Forces' including Delhi Police, if a person is physically fit, certainly he will get the promotion as per the service rules.

7. The claimant received 100% permanent disability on both lower limbs and is confined to wheelchair. He is continuing in the same service, however, due to the disability received, certainly, he will not get further promotion.

8. As the issue of amount of Rs.5,04,000/- granted towards attendant charges is concerned, due to the disability received by the appellant, he is compelled to keep an attendant throughout his life. If he invests the aforesaid amount in FDR, as on date, he may get an interest of Rs.3,000/- which is not sufficient to pay to an attendant even as on date. More so, after some time, even double of the amount will not be adequate to pay to an attendant.

9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed.

10. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and the balance compensation amount be released in favour of the respondent no. 1 / claimant on taking steps by him.

With the dismissal of the appeal itself, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such.

SURESH KAIT, J MARCH 28, 2014 jg MAC.Appeal No. 394/2011 Page 4 of 4