Permanent disability – Attendant charges for whole life -- Appellant/ claimant mentally retarded/ IQ 58% and suffered 100% permanent disability in relation to whole body -- Attendant charges calculated on the basis of multiplier method -- Assuming the attendant charges at the nominal rate of Rs.4,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 18, it comes to Rs. 8,64,000/- (4000 X12 X 18).

(P&H HC) Reserved on 28.10.2022 Decided on: 09.11.2022

Pleadings of negligence – Insurance company while filing the written statement did not plead that deceased was not wearing the helmet -- Still further, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove this fact and also failed to raise this point before the Tribunal -- Still further, insurance company has failed to draw the attention of the Court to the cross examination of eye-witness on this aspect -- In such circumstances, the argument of insurance company do not deserve acceptance.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2021

Additional evidence -- Only reason pleaded in the application is that the award would cause wrongful loss to the appellant/insurance company -- Reason does not fulfill the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Plea of Collusion -- Insurance company has taken a stand that the claimants in collusion with the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have filed the claim petition, whereas on the other hand, now the insurance company wants to examine the driver – Ld. Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the driver and the owner as well as to the insurance company to lead their evidence but they failed to do so -- Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2021

Pleading -- Manner of accident disputed – Counsel failed to draw the attention of the Court to such defence in the written statement and any discussion before the Tribunal on this aspect -- Driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in evidence, who could have deposed about the manner in which the accident took place -- Counsel also failed to draw attention of the Court to the cross examination of PW2, eye-witness on this aspect – Court expresses inability to accept the argument.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.04.2021

Execution of order -- Revisional Court’s power -- Enhancement of compensation by High Court in Appeal was ordered to be invested in a FDR and the interest accruing thereon be paid to the petitioner/ claimant – Ordering any deviation in the mode of investment would tantamount to modification of the judgement – High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot modify the judgement and that too in proceedings arising out of execution of that very judgement.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2021