Blog

Case Name: Saliya Begum @ Sarla v. Dhiyan Singh & Ors (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) 

Case No.: MAC.APP. 964/2016 

Dated: May 14, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Dharmesh Sharma 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

According to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, the claimant filed an appeal seeking an increase in compensation against the challenged judgment-cum-award issued by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims in the case Saliya Begum v. Sh. Dhiyan Singh & Ors.  

The learned Tribunal granted the claimant Rs. 7,43,377/-along with interest at the rate of nine percent annually from the date of filing the Detailed Accident Report until realisation.  

To cut out the needless details, the claimant was severely injured in a car accident that happened on March 10, 2014, at around 07:50 a.m., at the flyover in front of Vishal Mega Mart in Delhi. The claimant was crossing the road when she was struck by a Haryana Roadways bus.  

The owner of the offending car, which was acknowledged to be insured by New India Assurance Company Limited, was General Manager Haryana Roadways, but it was purportedly being driven recklessly and rashly by its driver, Dhiyan Singh. 

 

ISSUES: 

• Whether the petitioner Ms. Saliya Begum @ Saria suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 10.03.2014 at about 07.50 am involving Haryana Roadways Bus bearing No. HR-61-A-5438 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent 3 Insurance Company? 
• Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay? 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS:  

• Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Appeals- With the caveat that the High Court would not consider an appeal from a party obligated to pay any money under the terms of the award unless the party has deposited 25,000 rupees, or 50%, with it. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

In their appeal, the appellant’s learned counsel requested an increase in compensation under both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. They claimed that the learned Tribunal had neglected to account for potential future income growth and had decreased the assessed permanent disability from 44% to 25%, which had an effect on the assessment of functional disability or loss of earning capacity.  

Furthermore, it is urged that despite PW-1’s categorical testimony, Ms. Mohsina Parveen, who testified that she was employed for approximately seven months as an attendant to care for the claimant starting on the date of the accident at a salary of Rs. 7,500/-per month, was arbitrarily dismissed without providing any justification, and that the attendant charges were mistakenly assumed to be pitifully low at Rs. 2,000/-per month. Additionally, it was requested that the exceedingly low scales used to measure compensation for non-pecuniary heads be increased for each head.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The insurance company’s learned counsel argued that although the claimant had deposed that she was a homemaker, she had not provided any documentation of her educational background, and the learned Tribunal had erred in calculating her notional income based on the minimum wage that applies to non-matriculated workers.  

It was further urged that the functional disability or loss of earning capacity had been correctly assessed at 25%; however, the claimant was only hospitalised for five days, according to the Cignus Sonia Hospital discharge summary, and the learned Tribunal decided to award a gratuitous amount in the form of lost earnings for the duration of the medical treatment. 

Additionally, it was argued that the compensation that the Learned Tribunal had granted should be decreased for each heading because it was granted on the higher end. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

Upon careful examination of the record and with great concern for the comments made by the opposing counsel, this Court concludes that the insurance company’s appeal is without merit from the beginning. However, the claimant’s learned counsel has made a compelling case for the augmentation of compensation, which this court considers to be persuasive. 

Regarding loss of earning capacity or functional disability due to permanent disability, the claimant provided testimony regarding the permanent disability certificate, which confirmed that she had permanent disability affecting her left upper and lower limbs to the tune of 44%. The claimant, who was 34 years old at the time of the accident, has a persistent locomotor handicap that makes it harder for her to squat, walk, run, climb stairs, and stand.  

There is no need for intervention in the interest grant by the learned Tribunal at a rate of 9% year due to the fact that upon the filing of the respondent/insurance company and the DAR had made an absurd a settlement offer of Rs. 75,000, which was appropriately turned down by the petitioner. Consequently, the judgement made by the knowledgeable Tribunal to grant interest at 9% from the DAR filing date, which is April 21, 2014, to the realisation will not change.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.