Nagappa Mahadev Doddaamani Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25092 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25092 of 1996)
Petitioner: Nagappa Mahadev Doddaamani
Respondent: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25092 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25092 of 1996)
Judges: J.S. VERMA, C.J. & B.N. KIRPAL, J.
Date of Judgment: Aug 29, 1997
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Section 110-A – Compensation – Shortening of leg by about two inches – Compensation of Rs one lakh – Challenge by insurer – High Court reducing to Rs 80,000/-, without cogent reasons. Held that High Court judgment cannot be upheld, as amount was neither excessive nor inadequate. Appeal allowed. (Para 3)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Section 110-A – Compensation – Shortening of leg by about two inches – Compensation of Rs one lakh – Challenge by insurer – High Court reducing to Rs 80,000/-, without cogent reasons. Held that High Court judgment cannot be upheld, as amount was neither excessive nor inadequate. Appeal allowed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs one lakh for an injury which resulted in shortening of one leg of the victim by approximately two inches. The question of adequacy of the amount of Rs one lakh as compensation does not arise for consideration since the claimant did not demand a higher amount. However, the insurer challenged the quantum and the High Court had reduced that amount from Rs one lakh to Rs 80,000 only. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. We are unable to uphold the High Court’s judgment reducing the amount of compensation from Rs one lakh to Rs 80,000 for no cogent reasons. It is settled that in appeal interference is made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously,in this case the amount of Rs one lakh could not be called too excessive nor was that the view taken by the High Court which merely reduced the amount to Rs 80,000 without giving any supporting reasons to satisfy the legal requirement. The High Court’s judgment is, therefore, set aside.
4. The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal’s award of Rs. one lakh as compensation together with interest @ 6 per cent is restored with costs throughout.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs one lakh for an injury which resulted in shortening of one leg of the victim by approximately two inches. The question of adequacy of the amount of Rs one lakh as compensation does not arise for consideration since the claimant did not demand a higher amount. However, the insurer challenged the quantum and the High Court had reduced that amount from Rs one lakh to Rs 80,000 only. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. We are unable to uphold the High Court’s judgment reducing the amount of compensation from Rs one lakh to Rs 80,000 for no cogent reasons. It is settled that in appeal interference is made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously,in this case the amount of Rs one lakh could not be called too excessive nor was that the view taken by the High Court which merely reduced the amount to Rs 80,000 without giving any supporting reasons to satisfy the legal requirement. The High Court’s judgment is, therefore, set aside.
4. The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal’s award of Rs. one lakh as compensation together with interest @ 6 per cent is restored with costs throughout.
