Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. (‘NICL’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to challenge the Award dated 16-02-2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South District, Saket Courts (‘Tribunal’), a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. modified the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and decreased the compensation amount from Rs. 8,17,100/- to Rs. 5,11,602/- after observing that the compensation given under the head of loss of future income had been computed incorrectly.
Background
In the case at hand, Respondent 1 suffered grievous injuries due to an accident caused by a truck that was being driven by respondent 2 in a rash and negligent manner. A First Information Report (‘FIR’) under Section 279/337 of the Penal Code1, 1860 was registered against respondent 2 at Madhepur Police Station.
A claim petition was filed by respondent 1 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Tribunal to seek compensation for his grievous injuries. To this, the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 16-02-2018 wherein it was held that respondent 2 was guilty of driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, and respondent 1 was awarded Rs. 8,17,100/- along with an interest at 9 percent per annum which was to be recovered from NICL.
NICL submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously passed the impugned award by awarding excessive compensation to respondent 1 and that it had also erred in considering 50 percent functional disability of respondent 1 since there was enough evidence to establish that respondent 1 was already disabled before the accident.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the limited question for adjudication was whether the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned award against NICL by granting excessive compensation. It was noted that while awarding compensation under the non-pecuniary heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, conveyance, and special diet, the Tribunal had predominantly relied on the circumstantial difficulties endured by respondent 1 due to his permanent disability.
The Court noted that after the accident took place, respondent 1 was taken to Sadar Hospital, Madhepura for first-aid treatment and was later shifted to AIIMS, Delhi for better treatment. It was also noted that prosecution witness 1 admitted during his cross-examination that respondent 1 had previously met with an accident in 2007 due to which a rod had been inserted in his right leg, and that he got his disability reassessed in 2013 at Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital.
Vide order dated 01-11-2023 the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi was directed by the Court to constitute a Board of Doctors to physically examine respondent 1 and to ascertain whether his permanent disability was caused by polio or by the accident. Accordingly, AIIMS submitted a report dated 02-07-2024 wherein it was mentioned that respondent 1 had a permanent disability of 65 percent. However, the current disability was determined as 78 percent temporary disability which included the pre-existing disability as well as post-accident injury.
The Court stated that the object of awarding the compensation to the claimant must be based on the principle of just and reasonableness to ensure that the claimant is put back to their earlier position.
Further, the Court referred to Popatlal Parsottamdas Shah v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 1981 SCC OnLine Guj 35 wherein the Gujarat High Court had observed that the extent of liability of the negligent person was only pertaining to the wrongdoer’s act of negligence.
The Court perused the report dated 02-07-2024 filed by the medical board and observed that respondent 1 was already suffering from 65 percent permanent disability before the accident and at present, was suffering 78 percent temporary disability which was inclusive of the pre-existing disability as well as the disability incurred in the accident.
The Court opined that the Tribunal had erred in considering 58 percent permanent disability and 50 percent functional disability without knowledge of the fact that respondent 1 was disabled even before the accident.
Further, the Court calculated that the temporary disability of respondent 1 was increased by 20 percent due to the occurrence of the accident, which was independent of his pre-existing disability. Accordingly, the Court considered this 20 percent as functional disability to calculate the compensation. Thus, Rs. 2,03,601.60/- was decided as the new compensation to be accorded under the head of loss of future income.
Thus, the Court modified the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and stated that the total compensation to be awarded to respondent 1 was to be calculated as Rs. 5,11,602/-.
The Court, while disposing of the appeal, directed NICL to pay the compensation amount within 30 days after deducting the amount already paid.
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dilip Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5759, Decided on 24-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant — Advocate Pradeep Gaur, Advocate Amit Gaur, Advocate Sweta Sinha
For Respondents — Party-in-person, Advocate Rakesh Raushan
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
