The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Indra Sardana & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2730 Del

28
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   +       MAC.APP.No.132/2009

                                  Date of Decision: 20th July, 2009
%

      THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
                    Through : Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Adv.

                       versus

      INDRA SARDANA & ORS.        ..... Respondents
                   Through : Mr. O.P. Mannie and
                             Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Advs.
                             for R-1.


CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be                       Yes
        reported in the Digest?


                           JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- has been

awarded to claimant/respondent No.1.

2. The accident dated 11th July, 1999 resulted in grievous

injuries to the claimant. The claimant was 19 years old at

the time of the accident and was a student. Seven teeth of

the claimant were broken/lost in the accident for which she

requires implant. Dr. R.K. Bali, a renowned dentist appeared

in the witness box as PW-5 and deposed that the claimant

would require implant for seven teeth and the charges for

each implant is Rs.35,000/-. The claimant was unmarried at

the time of the accident. The claimant had qualified the

entrance examination for getting admission in MBBS but lost

her career and could not become a doctor. The claimant was

disqualified in interview on the ground of broken teeth. The

claimant was also disqualified by Air-Force Nursing College

on account of teeth problem.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged

the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant.

However, since the appellant had not taken the permission

from the learned Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, the appellant cannot challenge the quantum of

compensation awarded to the claimant. Reference in this

regard be made to the judgments by the Apex Court in the

cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nicolletta

Rohtagi, (2002) 7 SCC 456 and Shankarayya vs. United

India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 3 SCC 140 where it has

been held that in the absence of defence as envisaged under

Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act being taken over by

the insurance company, the appeal filed by the insurance

company is not maintainable.

4. No case is made out even on merits. Considering the

nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the learned

Tribunal awarded Rs.8,10,000/- to the claimant which is just,

fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this

case.

5. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

CM No.9696/2009

Since the appeal has been held to be non-maintainable,

the cross objections are dismissed.

CM No.3049/2009

1. Dismissed.

2. The learned Tribunal is directed to immediately release

the original FDR in respect of the 50% of the award amount

to the claimant.

3. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for the parties under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

JULY 20, 2009 aj