HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appellant was twelve years of age when he suffered an injury which totally disfigured and disabled his left arm below the elbow joint. This
disablement was permanent. As per the doctor, who appeared as a witness,
the appellants injury was such that it was not possible for him to open
his palm. He had lost grip to move it forward and backward. The opinion
expressed was that his arm has become totally functionless. The Tribunal
came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - by way of
compensation was a reasonable figure. The total amount of compensation to
which the appellant was legally held entitled to was found to be Rs.
86,000/ -. This was divided as under: Compensation for pain, suffering and shock: Rs. 10,000/ -
Compensation for disfiguration: Rs. 25,000/ -
Compensation for loss of amenities of life such as loss of
prospects of marriage: Rs. 5,000/ -
Compensation for injuries : Rs. 50,000/ -
(2.) EVEN though, the above opinion was expressed by the Tribunal, the total amount which was awarded to the appellant was at Rs. 46,000/ -.
This was the amount claimed by him in the application seeking
compensation. Thus, even though, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that
the amount which could be legally awarded was much more but as the
claimant had restricted his claim to only Rs. 46,000/ -, only that much
amount was allowed as compensation, the appellant challenged this award
in this court. The appeal was dismissed holding that the view expressed
by the Tribunal calls for no interference. Not satisfied with that, the
appellant preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that If the appellant -claimant restricts his claim to a particular
figure, then the compensation has necessarily to be fixed as per the
claim projected by the claimant. Thus, what is urged is that the claimant
is bound by the facts and figures given by him vis -a -vis amount of claim
and the Tribunal cannot fix a figure which would be the amount so
The short question which is thus required to be seen at the outset is as to whether the Tribunal dealing with such matters has the
requisite jurisdiction to award an amount which is more that what is
claimed. The fact that the appellant was a minor at the time when the
claim was made, is being projected. It is stated that if the interest of
minor is not properly taken care of by his guardian, then it was the duty
of the Tribunal to not to ignore this aspect of the matter.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.