THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD v. NAVEEN AND ORS

Judgment

1. These are cross-appeals filed by the claimant, Mr. Naveen Kumar, and Oriental Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”], arising from an award dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] in MACT No. 797/2018, whereby a sum of Rs. 4,47,844/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, was granted in favour of the claimant. Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:15.12.2025 15:12:53 MAC.APP. 41/2021 and MAC.APP. 34/2022 Page 1 of 15 A. 2. FACTS The facts of the accident, as narrated in the award, are that on

12.03.2018, the claimant was waiting for a bus, when he was struck by a tanker bearing registration No. DL-1LP-4567 [“offending vehicle”]. He sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident, for which he was hospitalised at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi [“AIIMS”]. The claimant was then 55 years of age. 3. The accident resulted in criminal proceedings against the driver of

the offending vehicle. FIR No. 82/2018, dated 12.03.2018, under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered against the driver at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. After investigation, a chargesheet was also filed in the criminal proceedings. B. 4. IMPUGNED AWARD Upon submission of the Detailed Accident Report before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the case of the injured victim for compensation, in which the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle, were arrayed as respondents. The Tribunal returned a finding of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle, and awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads: Heads Expenditure on treatment Expenditure on conveyance Expenditure on special diet Sr. No 1. 2. 3. 4. Attendant charges 5. 6. Mental and physical shock Loss of income during treatment Amount Rs.11,828/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.45,600/- Rs.50,000/- Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:15.12.2025 15:12:53 MAC.APP. 41/2021 and MAC.APP. 34/2022 Page 2 of 15 Pain and suffering Loss of amenities of life

7. 8. 9. Disfiguration 10. Loss of future income Total SUBMISSIONS Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,30,416/- Rs.4,47,844/- I have heard Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance C. 5. Company, and Mr. Varun Sarin, learned counsel for the claimant. 6. Mr. Sharma challenges the award on the following two grounds: a. That the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue of negligence in favour of the claimant, as he did not examine any independent eyewitness to prove the same, and failed to give detailed findings in this regard. b. That the Tribunal granted excessive compensation under non- pecuniary heads.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sarin submits that the compensation ought to be enhanced on the following grounds: a. That the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimant on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker, instead of his actual income of Rs. 24,000/- as a salaried employee at Vision Control Products Private Limited, New Delhi. Mr. Sarin further submits that, in any event, the Tribunal erred in applying the minimum wages prevalent in Haryana, instead of those applicable in Delhi. b. That the Tribunal inadequately assessed the functional disability at 13%, contrary to the law laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:15.12.2025 15:12:53 MAC.APP. 41/2021 and MAC.APP. 34/2022 Page 3 of 15 and Anr1. c. That the Tribunal omitted to grant enhancement of income on account of future prospects, as required by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors2. d. That the Tribunal awarded non-pecuniary damages only to the extent of Rs.50,000/- each for pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, disfigurement, and loss of amenities, which are wholly inadequate. e. That the Tribunal awarded insufficient compensation under the heads of expenditure for conveyance, special diet, and gratuitous attendant services, fixed at Rs.20,000/- each. Each of the above aspects is dealt with below.

8. D. RE: FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE 9. As far as the finding of negligence is concerned, Mr. Sharma submits that the claimant did not examine any independent eyewitness to substantiate the same, and that the Tribunal also failed to provide detailed findings in this regard. 10. The only evidence with regard to the accident was led by the claimant, who examined himself as PW-1. In his affidavit of evidence, he stated as follows: “2. That on dated 12/03/2018 at about 03:15 P.M. the Petitioner was standing and waiting for Bus due to some office work at start point of Lajpat Nagar Flyover, opposite PGDAV Collage, Ring Road, from Aashram to Moolchand, New Delhi with due care and precaution to go Chankyapur, New Delhi. At the same time suddenly a vehicle bearing