Mac.App. 1127/2014. Case: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pinki. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | Mac.App. 1127/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pankaj Seth, Advocate and For Respondents: Vijay Ahlawat and Shahid, Advocates |
| Judges | Jayant Nath, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Law |
| Judgement Date | December 12, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Jayant Nath, J.
CM No. 20384/2014
Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
MAC APP 1127/2014 and CM No. 20383/2014
-
By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the Award dated 23rd September, 2014. The appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself.
-
The brief facts are that respondent No. 1 on 7th March, 2011 was crossing the road at Mayur Vihar, Phase-III and was hit by a Gramin Sewa vehicle which was driven by respondent No. 2 at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent No. 1 sustained multiple grievous injuries.
-
The dispute centers around the compensation awarded to respondent No. 1 on account of permanent disability suffered by her. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,55,537/-, as follows:-
-
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded is on the excessive side. He submits that there is no evidence placed on record to show the nature of work done by respondent No. 1 and accordingly there is nothing on record to assess the functional disability suffered by the appellant. Accordingly, he submits that compensation for loss of income is much on the higher side. Similarly, he submits that compensation for loss of amenities, disfigurement, and loss of marriage prospects, conveyance and special diet is on the higher side and has been awarded without any basis or evidence whatsoever. He further submits that the driving license of the driver was not valid but the Tribunal had wrongly given recovery rights whereas the appellant should have been exonerated. He further submits that while computing loss of income the tribunal assessed the income towards future prospects wrongly.
-
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 on seeing the matter on the cause list has strongly defended the compensation awarded. He submits that in fact the compensation is on the lower side and given the nature of injuries suffered by respondent No. 1, the compensation is grossly inadequate.
-
A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal noted that the respondent No. 1 suffered permanent disability of 79 per cent in relation to her right upper and lower limb. The Tribunal concluded that respondent No. 1 was doing the work of embroidery/thread work in Radhika Enterprises. Her marriage was scheduled after one month. The effect of the accident was that she is unable to carry on her profession and her marriage has also been...
To continue reading
Request your trial