NEETU VS VASUDEV

CLAIM NO. 10000/31/18/C/750215

MACT – SAKET

CASE SYNOPSIS –

1.) It is the case of the Claimant No.1 namely Neetu Lodhi that on 15 th January, 2017, she

along with her husband were going to Faridabad and that she was travelling as a pillion

rider on the scooty bearing registration no. DL-85-AT-7174 being driven by her husband.

2.) Around 1 pm when they reached Ravidas Marg, a truck bearing registration no. HR-55J-

5124 being driven by driver namely Vasudev in a rash and negligent manner dashed the

scooty from behind. As a result of the aforesaid accident, both the occupants of the

scooty fell down and offending truck ran over both the legs of Claimant No.1 due to

which she suffered grievous injuries. Claimant No.1 is stated to have been diagnosed

with crush injury of both lower limbs with total above knee amputation.

3.) In pursuance thereto, FIR bearing No. 23/ 2017 dated 15.01.2017 under section 279/337,
IPC was registered by Claimant No.1 at the Police Station, Govind Puri, South-East
Delhi. The aforesaid offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55J-5124 is insured
by SGI.

4.) The Ld. MACT vide award dated 31 st October, 2018 directed the Petitioner Insurance

Company to pay a compensation of Rs. 49,99,240/- along with interest @ 9% per annum

from the date of filling the DAR till realization.

5.) Aggrieved with the order dated 31st October, 2018 passed by the Ld. MACT the

Petitioner Insurance Company preferred an appeal bearing MAC APP No.440 of 2019

challenging the award on the ground of quantum as also the contributory negligence.

6.) Claimant preferred cross-objections before the Hon’ble High court seeking enhancement

of compensation.

7.) The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20th December, 2019 without considering the

averments made, material placed on record and submissions advanced by the Petitioner

Insurance Company, allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent Claimant No.1

while enhancing the compensation fromRs.49,99,240/- to Rs.1,37,12,000/-,

8.) Award had been passed by Hon’ble Justice Waziri whose past judgments have always

been tilted towards the claimants and non favorable towards insurance companies.

9.) The Hon’ble High Court further partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner

Insurance Company to the extent that 5% fixed towards Consumables were deducted

from the income of the deceased.

10.) In response to impugned high court award, we have filed a SLP through our

Advocate Meenakshi Middha who is also a daughter of Justice Middha.

11.) Grounds of SLP –

a.) Whether the impugned judgment dated 20th December, 2019 passed by the Hon'ble

High Court is erroneous, misconceived, not in consonance with facts of the case and

proposition of law settled by this Hon’ble Court, and is therefore, liable to be set

aside?
b.) Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in observing that the Respondent No.1

Claimant be provided with a motorized wheelchair by the Petitioner Insurance

Company, that too with life time warranty, instead of merely awarding the cost of the

said wheelchair to the Respondent No.1 Claimant?

c.) Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating that a wheelchair is

normally available with a standard warranty of one year?

d.) Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in not appreciating that like every other

Insurance Company, the Petitioner Insurance Company has to also get its Certificate

of Registration [COR] continued every year from the Insurance Regulator i.e.

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), after making

payment of annual fee as per the concerned Regulations. It is further relevant to

submit that the continuation of COR is subject to fulfillment of the applicable terms

& conditions to the satisfaction of IRDAI, and thus, it is not feasible for the Petitioner

Insurance Company to provide a life time assurance to the Respondent No.1 Claimant

when the Petitioner Insurance Company is itself operating on a year-to-year basis?

e.) Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in observing that should the wheelchair need

to be repaired or replaced, the same shall be done at the cost of the Petitioner

Insurance Company, without appreciating that such a direction may be misused in as

much as the Respondent No.1 Claimant may insist for repairs / replacement resulting

from normal wear and tear and in such circumstances also, the Petitioner Insurance

Company shall be left with no option but to provide the same?

*******************************************************