Delhi High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd. vs Maya And Ors. on 7 April, 2016
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 295/2016& CM No.12942-44/2016
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
versus
MAYA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On her claim petition (MACT Case No. 58/2011) instituted on
31.01.2011, the motor accident claims tribunal (tribunal) held inquiry
clubbing it with other similarly placed cases arising out of same motor
vehicular accident that had occurred on 21.12.2010 at about 11 p.m.
involving tanker bearing No. HR 55 2626 (the offending vehicle)
admittedly insured against third party risk with the appellant insurance
company (insurer) and granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,75,833/-
with interest in favour of the first respondent (claimant) noting that she had
suffered injuries including fracture of mandible and left humerous and had
proved loss of income for a period of six months and medical expenses in
the sum of Rs. 1,60,145/-. The tribunal added compensation in the sum of
Rs. 50,000/- towards pain & suffering, Rs. 6,000/- each towards diet &
conveyance, Rs. 15,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards
loss of marital prospects besides Rs.38,688/- towards loss of income.
2. The insurance company having been fastened with the liability to pay
has come up in appeal questioning the computation of compensation
primarily raising grievance that award on account of pain & suffering is
inflated also contending that there was breach of terms and conditions of
the insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a
valid and effective driving license and there was no valid permit held.
3. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered, the age of claimant
(26 years old), the prolonged treatment that she had to undergo resulting in
loss of income for the corresponding period, and medical expenses which
were incurred in the process, the award cannot be said to be inflated by any
stretch of arguments.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the plea of
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy was upheld and that
it has been granted recovery rights. In this view of the matter, there is
hardly a case made out for further grievance to be raised. The third party
rights cannot be adversely affected by exonerating the insurer. Its interests
are duly protected [National Insurance Company V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3
SCC 297 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. V. Lehru & Ors.
(2003) 3 SCC 338]
5. Thus, the appeal is unmerited. It, with accompanying applications,
is dismissed in limine.
6. Statutory amount, if made, shall be refunded.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 07, 2016/nk
