ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GAYATHRI UMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the claimants is that on 22 -10 -2006 at about 6.00 p.m. when they were travelling along with other family members in a Toyota Qualis bearing No. KA - 09/N -2676 from Kanyakumari to Madurai, a lorry bearing No. TN -69/T -0109 came from the opposite direction and dashed against their vehicle near Gangal Kondan Deer park. The claimants sustained severe injuries. The 1st claimant filed MVC No. 237/2007. His wife Gayathri filed MVC No. 238/2007. Another relative filed MVC No. 239/2007. On contest, the tribunal awarded 24,89,500/ - in MVC No. 237/2007 and Rs. 9,75,000/ -in 238/2007 and Rs. 31,550/ - in MVC No. 239/2007. Questioning the excessive grant of compensation the insurer has filed two appeals. Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC No. 238/2007 the insurer has filed MFA No. 3888/2010. Aggrieved by the impugned order in MVC No. 237/2007, the insurer has filed MFA No. 3520/2010.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the insurer contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the tribunal has awarded compensation without any basis whatsoever. That number of errors can be seen in the impugned order. That there is an error in adding the sums as narrated in para -4. That the amount awarded at Rs. 50,000/ - towards nutritious food is far too exorbitant. That the amounts awarded towards disfigurement is at Rs. 50,000/ -., a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - towards pain and suffering, Rs. 25,000/ - for fracture Rs. 50,000/ - for medical expenses, Rs. 2,00,000/ - for loss of amenities, Rs. 50,000/ - for loss of expectation and Rs. 50,000/ - for future attendant charges. There is no basis whatsoever for the tribunal to award such excessive amounts.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contends that there is no error that calls for any interference. That the claimants have sustained grievous injuries and hence, the tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation. That the contentions of the insurer of excessive compensation therefore cannot be accepted.