Dismissed

(O&M) New India Assurance Co. ,Ltd. v. Vikram Chandla and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2014FAO/180/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana examined arguments regarding fault and injury details in a motorcycle accident case. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the insurer was at fault or that criminal liability existed, dismissing the appeal against the compensation award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award is dismissed.

(O&M) New India Assurance Co. ,Ltd. Vs Vikram… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO-180-2012 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO-180-2012 (O&M). Decided on: May 2, 2014.

¶4

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

¶5

..... Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vikram Chandla and others

¶8

..... Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶10

PRESENT Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶11

Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL).

¶16

The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 30.7.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.

¶17

Brief facts are that when the claimant was sitting as a pillion rider with respondent Gurinder Singh Sandhu on his motorcycle. The motorcycle skid because he was going at high speed as a result of which the claimant suffered serious injuries and his left leg was amputated at thigh. The Tribunal awarded compensation of 10,84,110/- i.e., 8,19,052/- for medical expenses,

¶18

¶19

Raj Kumar Arora 2014.05.28 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

FAO-180-2012 (O&M)

¶21

10,000/- for future treatment, 5,000/- as conveyance charges and `50,000/- on account of mental and physical shock, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.

¶22

The only argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that in the DDR it was specifically mentioned by the claimant himself that there was no fault of anybody but in the claim petition and in his testimony the claimant took a somersault and started blaming the driver.

¶23

Learned counsel for the claimant has argued that in the first part of the DDR, the claimant had got recorded that skid occurred because the motorcycle was on very high speed and subsequently that there was no fault of anybody can be contributed to the effect that the claimant did not want any criminal proceedings to be launched against the driver of the motorcycle and the statement has to be read as intending to state that there was no criminal liability. More so when the claimant appeared in the Court, he was cross-examined searchingly but nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination. In this situation, I do not consider the argument of the learned Insurance company to be well merited and reject the same.

¶24

The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed.

¶25

(AJAY TEWARI) May 2, 2014. JUDGE rka

¶26

¶27

Raj Kumar Arora 2014.05.28 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) New India Assurance Co. ,Ltd. v. Vikram Chandla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) New India Assurance Co. ,Ltd. v. Vikram Chandla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Comapnay Ltd. Vs Kala & Ors.

(O&M) National Insurance Company Vs Kiran and Ors.

(O&M) Rawat Singh Vs Raj Pal etc.

(O&M) Amarjit Kaur and Anr. Vs Manish Garg and Ors.

(O&M) Harinder Singh Vs Karambir Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Madan Lal Vs Randhir & Ors.