MAC.APP./580/2011 of BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs KRISHANA CHAUHAN & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ MAC APP. 580/2011

Date of decision: 2[nd] December, 2011

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant

Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.

Versus

SOMVEER SINGH & ORS. Through:

..... Respondents

Mr. Manoj Singh, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

J U M N T

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.Aggrieved by an award dated 24.03.2011 the Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal. Respondent No.1 Krishana Chauhan suffered grievous injury in an accident, which took place on 20.11.2008 at 6:00 AM. Respondent No.1 suffered loss of complete vision in the left eye. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,77,140/- under different heads. Para 12 of the award is extracted hereunder: - Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal. Respondent No.1 Krishana Chauhan suffered grievous injury in an accident, which took place on 20.11.2008 at 6:00 AM. Respondent No.1 suffered loss of complete vision in the left eye. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,77,140/- under different heads. Para 12 of the award is extracted hereunder: -

“12. In view of the above, total compensation head wise payable to petitioner is as under: -

MAC APP 580/2011

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary head i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, frustration, mental stress and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life was one and the same. It is urged that since the Appellant proved that there was breach of conditions of policy as the driver did not hold valid and effective licence on the date of accident, the Insurance Company had no liability to pay and should not have been made liable to pay and then recover compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary head i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, frustration, mental stress and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life was one and the same. It is urged that since the Appellant proved that there was breach of conditions of policy as the driver did not hold valid and effective licence on the date of accident, the Insurance Company had no liability to pay and should not have been made liable to pay and then recover

MAC APP 580/2011

from the owner. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 785 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed reservations about the correctness of decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yellamma, Samundra Devi v. Narendra Kaur, (vide SCC p. 64, para 16); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan, (vide SCC p. 64, para 13); New India Insurance Co. v. Darshana Devi, (vide SCC p. 424, para 21). Yet unless these decisions are reconsidered the same will hold the fields.

During inquiry before the Tribunal, it was established that the Respondent No.1 lost complete vision in her left eye and the compensation under item 5 and 6 in para 12 above totaling ` 1,50,000/- in the circumstances cannot be said to be excessive. I do not find any ground to interfere with the award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

4.The award amount deposited with the Registrar General shall be released to Respondent No.1 along with interest forthwith. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the Appellant shall also be released to the Appellant.

DECEMBER 02, 2011 hs

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

MAC APP 580/2011