The High Court dismissed the insurance company's cross objection appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The court upheld the lump-sum compensation of Rs. 60,000 awarded to the claimant, finding no error in the assessment based on injury nature and employment.
Cross objection/appeal rejected; cross objection/appeal closed.
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.
Serial No. 19
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CCROS No. 9900003/2013
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Advocate
v/s
Chaman Lal and others …Claimants/Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. R. Koul, Advocate.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER
Insurance Company.
2 MA No. 9900003/2013
Company was held to be not correct and the Tribunal was held to have not committed any error in awarding compensation to the claimants, in view of the valid insurance covering the vehicle in question. Upon dismissal of the said appeals, consequently, the cross objection/appeal(C) No. D-30/2013 came to be closed and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount as per award passed by the Tribunal to the claimants and the claimants were directed and entitled to withdraw the same.
3 MA No. 9900003/2013
with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and that upon being taken to Kishtwar Hospital and then to Doda, the appellant incurred Rs. -/ 2 ½ lacs for his treatment, but could not recover as he had suffered fractures of arms and ribs and that he was a Carpenter by profession earning Rs. 6000/7000/- per month.
Upon Tribunal’s question, the said Doctor deposed that he did not treat the patient and instead examined him on 28.10.2010 and that since
the injuries sustained by the injured is fractures, a specialist i.e. Orthopeadiation can give more correct opinion.
4 MA No. 9900003/2013
interference and enhancement sought by way of the present cross objection/appeal is liable to be rejected, and is, accordingly rejected.
The cross objections/appeal is consequently, closed.
Jammu 16.08.2021 Renu
RENU BALA 2021.08.21 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in awarding lump sum compensation to the claimant by taking into account the nature of injury, duration of hospitalization and nature of job.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
AIR 1995 SC 775Referred¶12
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Chaman Lal
JAVED IQBAL WANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
