Allowed

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mam Chand and Others

Uttarakhand HC18 Jul 2017AO/244/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal and dismissed the injured party's appeal, modifying the compensation award. The court reduced disability-related and pain-and-suffering components while retaining medical expenses, striking down the 9% interest rate, and directing payment within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Compensation amount modified to Rs. 11,46,645; interest rate struck down; remaining amount to be paid within six weeks.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mam Chand and Others — Insurance | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal from Order No. 244 of 2017

¶3

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited

¶4

Mam Chand & Others

¶5

…. Appellant Versus …. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for the appellant.

¶7

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent no. 1.

¶8

With

¶9

Appeal from Order No. 165 of 2017

¶10

Mam Chand

¶11

…. Appellant Versus

¶12

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Others

¶13

…. Respondents

¶14

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.

¶15

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶16

Both the appeals titled above have arisen out of the same judgment dated 31.01.2017 rendered by the Addl. District Judge/Tribunal, Dehradun in MACP No. 90/2012 hence, are being taken up together for adjudication.

¶17

Delay of five days on the part of the Insurance Company is hereby condoned. This appeal is admitted for hearing which has been presented challenging the quantum of compensation. On the other hand, AO No. 165/2017 has been preferred by the injured Mam Chand for enhancement of the award.

¶18

The accident occurred on 19.11.2011 at 06:30 AM when motorcycle borne a man Mr. Mam Chand was dashed by the truck no. UP26-8630. He was seriously injured inasmuch as remained hospitalized in sundry

¶19

¶20

hospitals including Sir Gangaram Hospital, Delhi and ultimately he suffered 40% disability in his right leg. Although, he could not present any proof regarding the age but, his age was assessed by other medical papers between 41 to 45. He pleaded himself to be working as a senior leadman in some private company running its business under the name and style Kirwi Building System, SIDCUL, Haridwar and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month.

¶21

The accident and the disability, insurance cover of the offending truck has not been disputed by the appellant-Insurance Company. He filed the claim petition demanding the compensation to the tune Rs. 22,01,500/- whereagainst the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 13,46,645/- along with 9% simple interest from the date of presentation of the petition to that of actual payment.

¶22

¶23

The Insurance Company has drawn the attention of this court towards paragraph-25, 26 & 30 of the impugned judgment. Although the certificate of 40% disability was issued by Dr. Jyoti Bohra, Doon Hospital in his favour but, it has also been observed in such certificate that disability will be mitigated with the passage of time. So, the learned Tribunal has evaluated the compensation on the ground of 30% disability and as per his age group, applied the multiplier of 40.

¶24

Although there is no standard formula in evaluating the compensation in such matters, there is always a grey area which has to be taken into consideration for evaluating the just and appropriate compensation to the injured.

¶25

I think the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,40,000/- towards the disability has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal which leaves no scope for

¶26

¶27

further enhancing the same on account of the mitigating in the life expectancy. In addition to, Rupees Two Lakhs have been awarded towards pain and suffering. It is also in the higher side. So, I reduce this amount from Rupees Two Lakhs to Rupees One Lakh only and do away with Rupees One Lakh amount in the score of mitigation of the life expectancy.

¶28

The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation on many other scores as well like Rupees One Lakh in the medical expenses albeit such expenses could not be proved as have been held by the Hon’ble Divisional Bench of this court in Kashmir Singh vs. Santosh Singh Patiner & another 2006 (2) U.D., page 693 but still I am not inclined to disturb the grant of such medical expenses for the reason that when he got his treatment done in Sir Gangaram Hospital, Delhi then certainly he would have incurred expenses and looking to the quality of treatment in such hospitals the amount of Rupees One Lakh in addition to Rs. 11,200/- as well as Rs. 6,225/- are not much. The amount of compensation is calculated as under:

¶29

(a) Rs. 8,40,000/- (Rupees eight lakh forty thousand only) towards the disability.

¶30

(b) Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards the pain and suffering.

¶31

¶32

(d) Rs. 11,200/- (Rupees eleven thousand two hundred only) to Dr. N.C. Sur.

¶33

(e) Rs. 6,225/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred twenty five only) to one Shri Amit Kumar.

¶34

¶35

(f) Rs. 89,220/(Rupees eighty nine thousand two hundred twenty only) which the petitioner could not get on account of ailment.

¶36

In total Rs. 11,46,645/- (Rupees eleven lakhs forty six thousand six hundred forty five only)

¶37

The Insurance Company has already paid half of the total decretal amount. The remaining shall be paid within six weeks, otherwise 6 % interest shall be liviable on such remaining amount and the rate of interest to 9% as awarded by the Tribunal is struck down for the reason that the amount for compensation is also in the higher side.

¶38

For the reasons set forth above, AO 165/2017 has no force, thus, it is hereby dismissed. The appeal No. 244/2017 is hereby allowed and the award stands modified accordingly.

¶39

The amount which is lying deposited in the High Court including the compulsory statutory deposit shall be remitted back to the learned Tribunal along with the interest accrued thereon to be returned to the appellant.

¶40

LCR be sent back.

¶41

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 18.7.2017

¶42

Pooja

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mam Chand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mam Chand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Laxmi Devi and Others Vs Vipin Kumar Dandriyal and Others

M/s Gunsola Hydro Power Generation p Limited Vs M/s Process Equipments India and Another

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Laxmi Devi and Others

Smt Asgari Vs Uttarikhand Gang Nahar Roorkee and Others

Kewal Krishan Lamba and Others Vs Sunil Gupta and Others

Farukh Vs Harjeewan Singh