Punjab-Haryana High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Unknown on 7 August, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
FAO No. 3821 of 2013 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 3821 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 7.8.2013
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
.. Appellant
v.
Smt. Rekha Rani and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Nitin Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 7.12.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal').
The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), medical expenses could not be granted beyond ` 15,000/-, whereas in the present case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 12,51,038/- on that account. The fact that the aforesaid amount was spent is not in dispute.
A perusal of the award of the Tribunal shows that while awarding actual amount spent by the claimants on medical expenses, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in FAO No. 951 of 2009--Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gurdev Singh and others, decided on 30.8.2012. Though learned counsel for the appellant cited ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Arshad and another, 2011 ACJ 785 (Cal.), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lilawati Devi and others, 2012 ACJ 1251 (Delhi) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha and others, 2012 ACJ 1754 (Delhi) in support of his argument that on account of medical expenses, maximum ` 15,000/- could be awarded in a Kumar Manoj 2013.08.27 08:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 3821 of 2013 [2] claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, but he was fair enough to submit that there is no judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the issue.
As against that, in addition to the judgment of this Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), learned counsel has also referred to the judgments of Gauhati High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalawmpuia and others, 2012 ACJ 271 and Karnataka High Court in Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijay Balshiram Walunj and others, 2012 ACJ 2292, taking the view similar to the one taken by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Once there is a direct judgment of the jurisdictional High Court on the issue, it would not be appropriate to place reliance upon the judgment of any other High Court in the absence of a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
In view of the aforesaid material on record, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.8.2013 mk Kumar Manoj 2013.08.27 08:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document