Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sonika & Ors on 26 April, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26th April, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 185/2011
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Pradeep Sharma with
Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocates
versus
SONIKA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Hemchander Sharma, Advocate
for the Respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Navneet Goyal with
Ms. Suman. N. Rawat, Advocates for
the Respondent No.4 & 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns a
judgment dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation
of `3,84,100/- was awarded in favour of the First Respondent
for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred
on 05.05.2006.
2. Subsequently, an application dated 15.12.2010 under Section
151 and 152 of the CPC was moved by the Appellant for
correction of certain clerical mistakes on the ground that some
payments which have been made by the First Respondent
towards the advance payment are also reflected and have been
taken into consideration in the payment of the final bills. Thus,
it was urged that the First Respondent has been paid the amount
twice. The application was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal
with a cost of `25,000/- on the ground that the same was
frivolous. A sum of `10,000/- was directed to be recovered
from the salary of the delinquent official of the Appellant.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has taken me through
host of the documents placed on record of the paper book and
also the bills Ex.PW-1/6 and PW-1/7. Tabulated charts in the
form of Annexure 1, Annexure 2 and Annexure 3 were also
placed on record. In the Column of 'Remarks' it has been
demonstrated that the entries at Serial No.8, 16, 17, 20, 24, 27,
36, 49, 54, 57, 68, 69, 81, 123 and 124 have been taken into
consideration in the final bill as well as towards the advance
payment.
4. Annexure 3 shows the amount which was paid to the First
Respondent towards the bills raised for treatment and towards
cost of the medicines. Annexure 2 reflects the amount which
was paid twice. There is no rebuttal to the averments or these
Annexures. Even during the course of arguments the learned
counsel for the Respondent No.1 (the Claimant) has not been
able to show any discrepancy in the Annexures. It is, therefore,
apparent that the First Respondent was entitled to a
compensation of `1,44,055/- only towards the expenditure made
on his treatment as against ` 2,51,603/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal.
5. The compensation thus stands reduced from `3,84,100/- to `
2,76,552/-.
6. The impugned order imposing costs of `25,000/- upon the
Appellant and directing recovery of `10,000/- from the salary of
delinquent official was not justified. The same is accordingly
set aside.
7. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.
8. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 26, 2012
vk
