NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANDITA PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. One Nandita Pathak sustained fractures in both bones of the right leg in a vehicular accident. She was operated upon and post operation her ankle and knee joints are constrained to bend. A medical board gave a certificate assessing the disability (permanent) at 50 per cent. However, there is no amputation of the leg. The disability stated appears to be an exaggerated one. The disability is to be considered at 25 per cent.

(2.) Petitioner was a seamstress, so her income is to be at Rs. 4,500 per month. Medical bills disclose that she has spent Rs. 33,000 for medical expenses. She is to be awarded Rs. 50,000 towards pain and agony and Rs. 50,000 medical and incidental expenses, and Rs. 30,000 loss of amenity and future discomfort due to disability. Twenty-five per cent of Rs. 4,500 that is Rs. 1,125 is to be awarded towards the mental loss due to disability. The total loss of future income due to disability would thus be 1,125 x 12 x 18 (multiplier) - 2,43,000. Rupees thirty thousand is to be awarded towards the loss of income during the laid-off period. The total compensation payable to petitioner is more than the one awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the question of reduction in the compensation does not arise.

(3.) The Counsel for the respondent/petitioner has relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in National Insurance Company v. Komal and Others,2013 ACC 121 ), to contend that even in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection a Court has ample power to grant the just compensation under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC. The Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment in Ranjana Prakash and Others v. Divisional Manager and Another, 2011 14 SCC 639, has made the following observations: