In a monumental decision by the Delhi High Court, justice has been served in a case with far-reaching implications. The judgment brings relief to the claimant, highlighting the importance of upholding legal rights and responsibilities in our society. Stay tuned to learn more about this significant legal victory.
Facts
- The claimant/injured suffered traumatic injuries at the age of 49 years.
- The disability is severe and will significantly impact normal bodily functions for life.
- Compensation for loss of earning capacity needs to be re-assessed at Rs. 1,95,000/-.
- Meagre compensation awarded for mental, physical shock, pain, suffering, and loss of amenities.
- Medical evidence confirms a 15% permanent physical impairment.
- Claimant/injured was bed-ridden and unable to perform daily chores for about a year.
- Compensation for loss of income/earnings should be increased to Rs. 1,20,000/-.
- Claimant/injured suffered multiple fractures and a 10% disability of the whole body.
- 25% addition to notional income for future prospects considered by the Tribunal.
- Claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act allowed for permanent disability of 85% suffered by Aas Mohd.
- Total compensation awarded is Rs. 88,33,363/-
- The insurer is attempting to deny liability based on evidence in MACP
- Aas Mohd., aged 24 at the time of accident, suffered permanent physical impairment in right lower limb
- Disability Certificate (Ex. CW-1/1) confirms the 85% disability
- No compensation has been received by Aas Mohd. till date
Arguments
- Misconduct and dilly-dallied strategy by the Insurance Company caused gross injustice
- Delay in leading evidence in MACP No 136/2016 aggravated the misery of the appellant
- Driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle remained untraceable
- Counsel for the claimant referenced various legal decisions to support their case
- Fraud vitiates everything and since the offending vehicle was not insured for third-party risks, no liability to pay compensation can be fastened upon the Insurance Company.
- The Insurance Company took a specific plea in the earlier claim petition that the policy of insurance was being verified, and evidence was led on this aspect in the third claim petition.
- This verification process ultimately led to the judgment dated 21.11.2022.
Analysis
- The issue of genuineness of the cover note/policy of insurance was not raised in the earlier claim petitions bearing MACP Nos. 137/2016 and 135/2016, leading to issue estoppel.
- The testimony of the witnesses R3W1 and R3W2 from the Insurance Company did not substantiate the claim that the cover note/policy was forged or fabricated.
- The absence of evidence or plea regarding the cover note being fake during the earlier claim petitions strengthened the decision that the Insurance Company was liable to compensate the claimants.
- The findings in MACP Nos. 137/2016 and 135/2016 formed the basis for barring the Insurance Company from contesting the validity of the insurance in a subsequent claim (MAC APP 379/2023).
- The principle of issue estoppel and finality of decisions on factual matters were emphasized in assessing the responsibility of the Insurance Company in compensation claims.
- The Insurance Company’s delay in verifying the insurance authenticity and contradictory testimonies weakened the argument against the cover note’s genuineness.
- The Tribunal’s decision to exonerate the Insurer from compensation payment in MACP No. 136/2016 was found unsustainable due to lack of evidence and coherence in testimonies.
- The trial discrepancies and lack of credible evidence led to the Court’s ruling against the Insurance Company’s claims of the cover note being forged or fabricated.
- In a case where the question is purely a legal one concerning the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision sanctioning something illegal, the rule of res judicata does not prevent a party from challenging the legality of the decision.
- The Kerala High Court, in the case of Devi T. V. vs. Jamsheer P. & Ors., dealt with a situation where two claimants were awarded compensation in separate proceedings, with differing liabilities attributed to the Insurance Company.
- A mixed question of law and fact settled in a prior proceeding between the same parties cannot be contested in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties.
- The decision in a case of interpreting a statute will be binding in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, as long as the cause of action remains unchanged.
- In the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossbai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, the Supreme Court emphasized that the correctness of the earlier judgment is not relevant in the application of the rule of res judicata.
- The court found that it is plausible that the appellant must have required assistance while confined to bed.
- The judgment-cum-award in MACP No. 136/2016 regarding Aas Mohammad is deemed unsustainable in law.
- The appellant/insurance company cannot be exonerated from its financial liability to pay compensation.
Decision
- MAC APP No 1033/2018 filed by the insurance company dismissed
- Compensation for nursing/attendant increased to Rs. 1,00,000
- MAC APP No 306/2019 filed by the claimant allowed with terms
- Compensation awarded for future medical treatment at Rs. 1,00,000
- Total compensation worked out to be Rs. 16,37,555 for the injured party
- MAC APP No 1041/2018 filed by the insurance company dismissed
- Claimant awarded total compensation of Rs. 16,37,555 with interest
- Insurance company directed to pay entire compensation amount of Rs. 88,33,363 to the claimant
- Compensation for pain and suffering enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000
- Compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenities of life enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000
- Total compensation worked out to be Rs. 8,96,663 for the claimant
- Interest @ 9% per annum applicable on the compensation amount till realization
Case Title: FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ISHRAT & ORS (2024:DHC:4014)
Case Number: MAC.APP.-1041/2018
