product design engineer

Enhancement of compensation – insurance claim = we find no ground shown by the Tribunal or the High Court in providing pecuniary and non­ pecuniary damages at a lower rate.= From the High Court’s judgment and award passed by the Tribunal it is clear that the claimant placed evidence to suggest that the cost of prosthesis was Rs.75,000/­ . It was accepted at Bar that the cost of prosthesis was Rs.1,60,000/­. Inspite of the same the Tribunal did not chose to allow any amount towards prosthesis and the High Court allowed a petty amount of Rs.50,000/­ for the same. No separate amount has been allowed towards travelling to the Hospitals though the claimant was required to go to attend the Hospital every 10 days for treatment. We further find that a meager sum of Rs.25,000/­ has been allowed by the High Court towards pain and suffering. 18. Having regards to the fact that the Tribunal and the High Court have not allowed reasonable amount for different pecuniary and the non­pecuniary damages, we, therefore, with a view to do complete justice to the claimant re­ determined the amount of compensation on the following terms: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment,hospitalisation, medicines,transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (medical expenses Rs.15,000 + Attendant Rs.15,000 + cost of prosthesis Rs.75,000) Rs.1,05,000 (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: 12Page 13 (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings (on account of 70% permanent disability taking multiplier of 16) Rs.4,500 Rs.6,04,800 (iii) Future medical expenses. Rs.50,000 Non­pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Rs.1,00,000 (v) Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000 (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) Rs.1,00,000 Total Rs.11,64,300 The respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the claimant­appellant a sum of Rs.11,64,300/­ minus the amount already paid pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal within three months from the date of judgment with interest @ 12%. The order passed by the High Court and Tribunal stands modified to the extent above. The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed with the above observation and direction. No separate order as to costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40489 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4814         OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.6282 of 2011) NEERUPAM  MOHAN MATHUR …. APPELLANT VERSUS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.                       ….RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is filed by the claimant­appellant against  the  judgment   of  Punjab   and   Haryana   High  Court   at Chandigarh   in   FAO   No.693   of  1989,   whereby   the   High   Court granted a meager enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded   to   … Continue reading →