Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Jai Singh & Ors on 14 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 14th March, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 47/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
for Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv.
versus
JAI SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Nitin Yadav, Adv. for
Respondents No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No.688/2012 in MAC. APP. 47/2012
1. By virtue of this application, the Appellant United India
Insurance Co. Limited seeks permission to lead additional evidence. It
wants to prove the report of the investigator forwarded to the
Advocate by a letter dated 11.10.2011.
2. A perusal of the record shows that the claim petition was filed
on 18.09.2009. Before that date AIR (Accident Information Report)
had already been filed and its copy was received by the Appellant
insurance company. Obviously alongwith AIR copy of the driving
license of the driver was also received. In any case a copy of driving
license was filed by the Respondent No.1 on 18.09.2009 alongwith the
claim petition. The Appellant put an appearance and filed written
statement on 28.01.2010. The Appellant had sufficient time to obtain
verification report. By an order dated 15.09.2011 the Appellant was
given last opportunity to produce its evidence on the next date
i.e.31.10.2011. The counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company
himself closed the Appellant's evidence on 31.10.2011. In the
circumstances, the Appellant has not been able to make out a case for
leading additional evidence in appeal.
3. CM Appl. No.688/2012 accordingly disposed of.
MAC. APP. 47/2012
4. The Appellant impugns an award dated 28.11.2011 whereby a
compensation of Rs.1,67,510/- was awarded to Respondent Jai Singh
for having suffered injuries on 17.07.2009. It is stated in the ground
of appeal that the compensation award is exorbitant and excessive. By
impugned order following compensation was awarded under separate
heads:
Sl. No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of earning during the period `33,208/-
of treatment
2. Pain and suffering `25,000/-
3. Conveyance `10,000/-
4. Special diet `10,000/-
5. Medical expenses `89,302/-
5. The First Respondent suffered Trochanteric fracture of left
femur. He was treated in Orthonova Hospital, where closed reduction
(of fracture) was done by internal fixation with five hole with dynamic
hip screw with 9.5 mm Richards Screw (Zimmer). The First
Respondent remained on leave from 17.07.2009 to 31.12.2009.
Compensation awarded under head (1) and (5) was on actual basis.
Considering the nature of the injuries suffered, the period of
confinement in the hospital and at home the compensation awarded
under heads 2 to 5 cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive.
6. It is stated that the Second Respondent did not possess a valid
driving license to drive the offending vehicle and therefore the
Appellant was entitled to avoid the liability or in any case at least right
of recovery against the owner. The Appellant failed to prove that there
was any breach of condition of policy. In the circumstances, the
Appellant could not avoid the liability to indemnify insured.
8. The appeal is devoid of any merit, the same is disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2012/NS
