Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RAJ KUMAR SINGH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Singh & Others - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 3140 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 8043 (30 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.3

  AFR

First Appeal From Order No.3140 of 2003

National Insurance Co. Ltd.                     ....                    Appeallant

      Vs

Raj Kumar Singh & Others.                     ....                    Respondent.

: Present :

(Hon'ble Mr.Justice Amitava Lala & Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.C.Misra,)

: Appearance :      

For the Appellant                                    .....          Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

For the Respondents                              .....          Sri Devi Prasad Misra,

              Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey,

Amitava Lala,J.-  The claim amount of the claimant before the Tribunal was for  Rs.6,00,000/-.  The awarded amount of the Tribunal is Rs.10,17,200/- .   Therefore, it is much higher than the claim amount.  Ordinarily such amount cannot be granted.  This is the real crux of the case.  The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a  Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in AIR 2000 Gajarat 211 (Dr.Urmila J.Sangani, v. Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana and Ors.) based upon a decision of the Supreme Court in land acquisition case reported in AIR 1996 SC 2777 (Ujjain Vikash Pradhikaran v. Tarachand) held that the Claims Tribunal cannot award more  compensation than claimed.        However a contra judgement of Division Bench of Bombay High Court was considered therein.  Ultimately the Full Bench of Gujarat (supra) held that in view of the discussions, under Section 166 read with Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 110- B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it is not open to a Claims Tribunal to award the amount of compensation higher than the amount claimed by the claimant in the claim petition on the ground that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award just compensation.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also raised an issue  of loss  of earning since the injured has been replaced in the service  and continued in the same service without any monetary loss.  

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon a judgement of the Single Bench Judgement of the Andhra Pradesh 1995 (1) TAC 472 (AP) (New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. G.Lakshmi Alias Pentamma and Ors.) where it was held relying upon several High Court judgements that legislature has not imposed any embargo on the Tribunals to grant higher compensation over and above the compensation claimed by the parties.  

Such case is also under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, comparable with Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But the argument of the learned counsel is based on Section 163-A  but reliance has been made above on the basis of the judgement under Section 168 of the Act, 1988.  Therefore, the approach of the learned counsel for the respondent is misconceived in nature.   These two specific questions along with others, if any, are required to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh otherwise this problem will not be sorted out.  However, the Tribunal is at liberty to consider this question on the basis of other judgements also to come to a definite finding in this regard particularly by giving  reasons as to why the award has been given more than the claimed amount.  

Thus, taking into totality of the arguments advanced in this court, we are of the view it is a fit case for remand.  Hence the judgement and award as passed by the Tribunal being dated 22nd May, 2003 stands set aside.  The matter is remanded back for hearing afresh for finalization in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.  

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  

However, no order is passed as to costs.

The deposited amount be remitted back to the Tribunal.

      ( Justice Amitava Lala )

I agree.

(Justice V.C.Misra)

Dt.30.4.07

PKB

FAFO 3140-03


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.