This court heard two motor accident compensation appeals filed against the Tribunal's judgment awarding Rs. 22,53,600 to a claimant. With only the insurer present, the court upheld the Tribunal's findings on liability, quantum, and procedural issues, dismissing both appeals due to lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~ R-729 & R-730
Decided on: 12th January, 2018
Through: None.
versus
SUDERSHAN SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for R-3.
SUDERSHAN SINGH ….Appellant Through: None.
versus
RAVINDER UPPAL & ORS ….Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
MAC Appeal No.60/2013 & 264/2013
Page 1 of 5
the part of Sudershan Singh (appellant in MAC. Appeal No.264/2013 and first respondent in MAC. Appeal No.60/2013) of truck bearing registration No. PB-10BV-8610. The Tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 27.08.2012, upheld his case for compensation holding the said Sudershan Singh (driver) responsible for the accident.
MAC Appeal No.60/2013 & 264/2013
Page 2 of 5
payment of compensation in the total sum of Rs.22,53,600/- by judgment dated 27.08.2012, called upon the insurer (respondent No.3) to pay the said amount with interest @ 9% per annum fastening the liability also of interest for the aforementioned period on the first respondent.
MAC Appeal No.60/2013 & 264/2013
Page 3 of 5
CM(M) No.1253/2010 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 26.05.2011 burdening him (the driver) with the liability to pay interest for the period the petition had remained pending in the High Court. The appellant submitted that pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, by order dated 02.01.2012, in Civil Appeal No.20867/2011, he had submitted an application for review before this Court in the proceedings arising out of CM(M) No. 1253/2010. It may be mentioned here that as per the documents filed on record by the claimant by CM No. 8592-93/2013, the review petition No.149/2012 submitted by the driver was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2013 (Page No.98 of the paperbook of MAC. Appeal No. 264/2013).
MAC Appeal No.60/2013 & 264/2013
Page 4 of 5
This Court finds no error or deficiency in the awards under various heads. The grievance of the claimant in his appeal that adequate compensation has not been granted under the heads of loss of marriage prospects, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, special diet, conveyance or attendant charges, is unfounded. The Tribunal has taken an appropriate view on the basis of material brought before it during the inquiry.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 12, 2018 srb
MAC Appeal No.60/2013 & 264/2013
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was adequate or excessive.
Whether the petition was validly filed through an attorney.
Whether deductions for mediclaim policy benefits were correct in the compensation calculation.
Ravinder Uppal
Sudershan Singh
Sudershan Singh
Ravinder Uppal
Insurer
R.K. Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
