Dismissed

National Insurance Co. v. Gulam Mohd. and Ors.

J&K HC10 Dec 2021MA/45/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the National Insurance Co. against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 5,90,000 for a death claim. The court found no ground to interfere with the assessed income and rejected further claims for loss of estate and love and affection, though deemed it unjust to modify the old award, thus dismissing both the appeal and cross-objections.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and cross-objections were dismissed with the Tribunal's award of Rs. 5,90,000 remaining intact.

National Insurance Co. Vs Gulam Mohd. and Ors. — J&K HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Sr. No. 52

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

MA No. 45/2011 IA No. 57/2011 CM No. 2946/2021 in CCROS No. 41/2011 CONC No. 259/2011

¶4

National Insurance Co. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶5

Through: Mr. C.S.Gupta, Advocate.

¶6

¶7

.…. Respondent(s)

¶8

Gulam Mohd. and others

¶9

Through: Mr. Sheikh A Hussain, Advocate.

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER

¶11

The appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi vide dated 13.02.2010. The Tribunal by virtue of the aforesaid award held the claimants entitlement to Rs.5,90,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The death of the son of the claimants in the vehicular accident made the claimants to file the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the income assessed of the victim by the Tribunal while passing the award is erroneous. The court, however, does not find any reason to interfere with the same as the income assessed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also argued that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation to the claimants on account of loss of estate and also for love and affection.

¶14

MA No. 45/2011 in CCROS No. 41/2011

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not erred in passing the award on aforesaid two counts. Infact the counsel has submitted that the appellant is entitled to more compensation than what is awarded by the Tribunal as the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not as per the judgments on the subject. Infact he has filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation.

¶17

The learned counsel for the claimants though has tried to meet the argument of learned counsel for the appellant qua the compensation awarded on loss of estate and for love and affection by arguing that the claimants are entitled to the same, the court is of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has force and no such compensation could be awarded on those counts to the claimants. However, keeping in view the fact that the award has been passed in favour of the parents of the victim-son who has died in the accident in the year 2005 and the award has been passed about a decade back, the court does not find it just to modify the award. The appeal filed by the appellant-Company is, accordingly, dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the claimants also stand dismissed as the court does not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal along with cross-objections stand disposed of.

¶18

(Puneet Gupta) Judge

Jammu

10.12.2021

Pawan Chopra

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

¶23

PAWAN CHOPRA 2021.12.21 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

National Insurance Co. v. Gulam Mohd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. v. Gulam Mohd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimbro and Anr. Vs Gurdial

Santokh Singh Vs Roshan Lal and Ors.

Neha Abrol Vs Sunil Gupta

Santosh Uppal Vs M/S Dharam Pal Sandeep Kumar Gupta

Syed Abul Qasim Vs Muktesh.K.Pardeshi,Jt.Secy.and Anr.

M/S Hotel Kranti Pvt.Ltd. Vs J.K.P.C.B.and Ors.