AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—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 a total compensation of Rs. 2,77,140/- under different heads. Para 12 of the award is extracted hereunder: -
In view of the above, total compensation head wise payable to Petitioner is as under:
Compensation for pain & sufferings 30,000/-
Compensation for expenses Incurred on medical treatment 91,640/-
Compensation for Special diet 2,000/-
Compensation for conveyance charges 3,500/-
Compensation on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 1,00,000/-
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life & general damages. 50,000/-
2,77,140/
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 a 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 from the owner. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni and Another, 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 Rs. 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.
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.