Tuesday, 28, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Reshma & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6244 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 6244 Del
Judgement Date : 19 December, 2011

Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Reshma & Ors. on 19 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of decision: 19th December, 2011
+       MAC APP. 1076/2011

        NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.        ..... Appellant
                Through: Mr. A. K. Soni, Adv.

                                 Versus

        RESHMA & ORS.                                ..... Respondents
                Through:         None.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant seeks reduction of the compensation awarded on the ground that the Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of '13' instead of '14' as the deceased's age as per his Voter ID Card was 47 years. It is averred that the age of the deceased was taken as 45 years according to the postmortem report.

2. Admittedly, the Voter ID Card of the deceased was not produced before the Tribunal by the Appellant. During the inquiry before the Tribunal deceased's income was proved as ` 9,675/- per month and 3/4th of this was deducted towards the personal expenses. Obviously the Tribunal could not have considered this document as it was not filed before it. It is

submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant may be granted permission to prove this document by leading additional evidence. It is nowhere the Appellant's case that this document was not in their knowledge despite due diligence. Hence, permission to lead additional evidence cannot be granted. The compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection is only ` 10,000/-, which is much less than normally awarded in such cases. I would not like to re-open the matter for small amount of difference. The overall compensation of ` 12,54,050/- including the interim compensation, in the circumstances cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.

3. I do not find any merit in the appeal, dismissed in limini.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 19, 2011 hs

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter