Raminder Kaur @ Meena vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4243 Del

$~R-129

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of Decision: 01.06.2016
+      MAC.APP. 153/2008

       RAMINDER KAUR @ MEENA                    ..... Appellant
                        Through: Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary and Mr.
                        Rajiv Kumar Trivedi, Advocates

                         versus

       UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
       AND ORS.                                   ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for R-1


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
                         JUDGMENT

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

1. The appellant was travelling on the pillion of a two wheeler scooter bearing registration no.DL-2SE-9156 driven by her brother Devinder Singh on 08.12.1995 when it was involved in a motor vehicular accident on account of negligent driving of a car bearing registration no.DL-3CE-7860 (car), admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question with the first respondent (insurer). Both she and her brother Devinder Singh suffered injuries. Accident claim cases were filed by each of them (the case of the appellant being petition no.1049/2004, old suit no.55/1997).

2. In both the cases, the tribunal held inquiry by clubbing them and, returned findings by separate judgments rendered on 30.10.2007, holding that the injuries had been suffered due to negligent driving of the car. In the case of the appellant, compensation in the sum of ₹1,87,590/- was awarded and the insurance company was directed to pay the same with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., the amount being inclusive of ₹37,590/- towards medical expenses, ₹60,000/- towards loss of income, ₹20,000/- towards special diet, ₹20,000/- towards conveyance expenditure and ₹50,000/- towards pain and sufferings.

3. Appeals were filed both by the appellant herein and her brother Devinder Singh for enhancement. The appeal of Devinder Singh (MACA 87/2008) has been decided by a separate judgment today.

4. In the matter at hand, the grievance of the appellant is that though she had produced documents on record, loss of income for the period of six months on treatment was assessed for compensation on the approximate income of ₹10,000/- p.m. It is the submission of the appellant that documents on record showed she was serving as Air Crew with Air Crew Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., on the basis of agreement (Ex. PW4/32) which indicated her basic salary to be USD 450 p.m.

5. The tribunal did not accept the above noted contention, sought to be supported by identity card (Ex. PW4/31). It is conceded by the counsel for the appellant that no proof as to salary or allowances actually received by the claimant from the employment with the Airline was adduced. He further fairly conceded that no such proof can be adduced even now. In these circumstances, the assessment made by the tribunal cannot be faulted.

6. The appeal is unmerited and is dismissed.

(R.K. GAUBA) JUDGE June 01, 2016 yg