The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Randhir Singh & Ors

judgment be released to respondent No.l and the remaining amount be refunded back to the appellant. n/

¶14statutory amount deposited by the appellant be refunded to the appellant.

¶15Copy of this judgment be sent to claimant/respondent No.l. MAY^', 2012 J.R. MIDHA, J (J4| 9 .. s $-26 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 303/2008 THE ORIENTALINSURANCECO. LTD Appellant Through Mr. S.D. Wadhwa,Adv. versus RANDHIRSINGH&ORS Respondents Through Respondentno.1inperson. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA ORDER %

10.10.2013 CM No.19197/2012

¶1Videjudgmentdated 31®' May, 2012, the award amountwas reducedfrom Rs.14,90,360/-to Rs.11,42,000/-along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitiontill realization. Learnedcounselfor the petitionersubmits that there is a calculationerror and the total of items in para 11 is Rs.10,42,000/-but the saidamounthas beenwronglymentionedas Rs.11,42,000/-. Learned counsel seeks the correction of the said error.

¶2Respondent no.l does not dispute the mistake in the judgment.

¶3The arithmeticalerrorin the judgmentdated 31®^ May, 2012 is corrected. Rs.11,42,000/-in paras 11 and 12 is correctedandbe read as Rs. 10,42,000/-. It

¶4The application stands disposedof.

¶5Respondent no.l shall refund the amount of difference payable to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. by virtue of this order. Respondent no.l present in Court submits that he will visit the OrientalInsuranceCo. Ltd., RegionalManager,Legal Deptt, 0/C Ltd., DRO-II, Scope Minar, Core-I(F.F.),Laxmi Nagar District Centre,Delhi-110092on 21®' October,2013 at 4.00 pm to settle the matter. » » "J.R. MIDHA, J OCTOBER 10,2013 dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Reservedon : 11*^^ l^v. 2012 Date of decision :'3''^av. 2012 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant Through : Mr. S.D. Wadhwa, Adv. versus RANDHIR SINGH & ORS. Respondents Through : Mr. Santosh Kumar Chaurihaa, Adv. along vvith R-1. CORAM ^ THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA iUDGMENT 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby of ?14,90,360/- has been awarded to respondent No.l. The appellant seeks reduction of the award amount. Respondent No.l has filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the award amount. 2. The accident dated 19'^ March, 2005 resulted in grievous injuries to respondent No.l. Respondent No.l's right ankle and foot were crushed due to which he suffered compound fracture in the right leg and fracture of left clavicle. Respondent No.l was initially admitted in Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, thereafter, shifted to Shri Balaji Hospital where he remained from 20''''' March, 2005 to April, 2005. RespondentNo.l was admittedfor aday in Bhagwan Mahavir ^ Hospital and Heart Institute on ig'*" May, 2005. Respondent no.l remained hospitalized in Shri Balaji Hospital from 8'^ June, 2005 to 17^''June, 2005. He was again admitted in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and Heart Institute from 4'^'" October, 2005 to 9'^'" October, 2005 from 30"^ December, 2005 to 31^' December, 2005. A steel rod was inserted in his right leg and a plate was inserted in the right ankle. Respondent no.l is still continuing his treatment in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and Heart Institute as an OPD patient. Respondent No.l has suffered 30% permanent disability relating to right lower limb. 3. The Claims Tribunal awarded ^35,000/- towards pain and suffering, ?25,000/- towards loss of enjoyment and amenities, ,60,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses, flOiOOO/- towards special diet, ?10,000/- towards conveyance, ?1,47,00Q/- towards loss of income and ?9,03,360/- towards loss of future income. The total is ^14,90,360/-. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing of this appeal that the respondent has not suffered any loss of income and, therefore, is not entitled to loss of past as well as future income. It is further submitted that respondent No.l remained on leave for nine months without MAC.APP,No.303/2008 Page 2;of 12 pay, out of which he adjusted 120 days' leave against earned leave and, therefore, he is not entitled to compensation for loss of past income. It is submitted that the respondent No.l was working as a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya at the time of accident is still continuing in the said post therefore, there is no loss of future income. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.l has urged the following grounds for seeking enhancement of compensation:- The compensation for pain and suffering be enhanced. for loss of enjoyment loss of amenities be enhanced. (ill) The compensation be awarded for disfiguration. (iv) The compensation for special diet and conveyance be enhanced. (v) The rate of interest be enhanced from 7.5% per annum to 12% per annum. 6. With respect to the compensation for loss of income for nine months, it is noted that respondent No.l remained on leave for nine months without pay. respondent had adjusted his earned leave of 120 days has, therefore, suffered loss on that account. Claims Tribunal has, therefore, rightly ^1,47,000/- towards loss of past income to respondent No.l. 7. Respondent No.l was working as.a teacher with Kendriya Vidyalaya. Respondent No.l is present in Court he submits that he is still continuing in service in Kendriya Vidyalaya. There is no deduction of salary on account of the injuries suffered by respondent No.l in the accident. There is no loss of promotion on account of 30% disability suffered by respondent No.l. Since respondent No.l has not suffered any loss of income, he is not entitled to compensation for loss of future income. This case is squarely covered by the judgment of the S