MAC.APP. 1127/2014. Case: Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs Pinki and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | MAC.APP. 1127/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr.Vijay Ahlawat with Mr.Shahid, Advocate |
| Judges | Jayant Nath Jayant Nath, J. |
| Issue | Insurance Law |
| Judgement Date | December 12, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Jayant Nath Jayant Nath, J.(Oral)
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 centres 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:-
1.
Towards future loss of income
Rs.8,08,920.00
2.
Towards pain and sufferings
Rs.1,00,000.00
3.
Towards servant/attendant for 6 months
Rs. 30,000.00
4.
Towards conveyance and special diet (without bills)
Rs.80,000.00
5.
Towards medical bills
Rs.11,677.00
6.
Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life
Rs.1,50,000.00
7.
Towards disfigurement
Rs.80,000.00
8.
Towards loss of Marriage Prospects
Rs.1,50,000.00
9.
Towards loss of wages
Rs.44,940.00
Total Rs.14,55,537.00 -
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial