TEJINDER SINGH GUJRAL versus INDERJIT SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

TEJINDER SINGH GUJRAL 
A 
v. 
INDERJIT SINGH AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
Section 166-Compensation-Enhancement of-Advocate met with 
accident while riding a scooter-Suffered injuries-Award of compensation- C 
Claim for enhancement on the ground that in fi1ture he might have to engage 
a driver for his car-Held, Nol entitled as there is nothing to show that he 
at any point of lime could afford a car-Nol entitled to enhancemelll on 
account of loss of prospective income also as nothing to show that he would 
not rise in his profession by reason of injuries suffered. 
D 
Section 147(2)-Liability of insurer, when insurance policy not brought 
on record-Held, presumption ·arises that liability of insurer is unlimited. 
Appellant, a practising lawyer met with an accident while riding a 
scooter. He filed claim petition for grant of compensation before MACT for E 
Rs.I lac. Later, he filed amendment application raising claim to Rs. 5 lacs. 
MACT awarded compensation of Rs.1.83 lacs and held that the liability of 
insurance company is limited. He filed appeal before the High Court. Single 
Judge of High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 2.90 lacs 
along with interest @ 12% per annum. Dissatisfied with the amount of 
compensation, appellant filed second appeal on the ground that he had suffered F 
permanent disability and therefore he is entitled to further compensation as 
he may have to engage a driver to drive his car in future and also towards 
loss of prospective income. Division Bench enhanced the amount of 
compensation under the head of 'loss of income' only. Still not satisfied, he 
filed these appeals. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The Tribunal committed an error in opining that the insurance 
policy was not required to be proved. The Single Judge of High Court rightly 
599 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A held that the insurance policy having not brought on records, a presumption 
would arise that the liability of the insurer was unlimited.1603-GI 
2.1. Both the Sini:te Judge as also the Division Bench were more than 
generous in awarding compensation to Appellant under different heads. The 
Division Bench of the High Court had opined that Appellant might have to 
B engage a driver and for the said purpose awarded compensation at the rate of 
Rs. 700/- per month from the date of filing of claim petition till the award by 
the Tribunal. Appellant now wants the amount of compensation to be enhanced 
on that head. The same is declined for more than one reason. Appellant has 
not proved that he had bought a car. He even on the date of accident was merely 
C riding on a scooter. He has not brought on record any evidence to show that 
even at that point of time he could afford a car. [604-D-FI 
2.2. Appellant is in legal profession. He may have suffered some injuries 
but the same would not mean that he would not be in a position to rise in his 
profession only by reason thereof. Enhancement of compensation in this regard 
D is also declined. 1605-D-FI 
Devi Dayal Kansai and Ors. v. Raj Roop and Anr., 12000110 SCC 314, 
relied on. 
Lata IVadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., [200118SCC197, 
E referred to. 
3.1. So far as the question of interest is concerned, it is true that the 
same need not be claimed specifically. Interest is granted by way of 
compensation but, the same must be a reasonable one. 1604-F-GI 
F 
Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India 
and Anr., 12003[ 3 SCC 148, referred to. 
3.2. Grant of interest is discretionary. The discretion exercised by the 
High Court was not in any manner unreasonable. 1605-BI 
G 
4. The Single Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 
H 
The rate of interest now granted is 9% per annum keeping in view the drastic 
fall in the bank rate. The said direction of the High Court is not interfered 
with. [605-FI 
Krishna Gupta & Ors. v. Madan Lal & Ors., 96 (2002) DL T 829, 
-
-
TE.llNDER SINGH GU.IRAL v. IND ER.I IT SINGH fS.B. SINHA . .I.] 
60 I 
approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4561 of2006. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 8.1.2002 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 928/1987. 
With C.A. No. 4562 of2006. 
Manrnohan, T.S. Gujral, Jasbir Singh Malik and S.K. Sabharwal for the 
Appellant. 
A 
B 
S.L. Gupta, Baldev Krishan Shanna, Sant Lal Naga
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.