Judgment:
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:
12. h September, 2013 % + MAC.APP. 899/2012 & CM No. 14235/2012 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .... Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate. Versus SH. SURESH CHAND K. BAJAJ & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.
(Oral) MAC.APP. 899/2012 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company is assailing the impugned award dated 07.05.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,47,050/- as compensation in favour of the respondent No.1/injured.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted lawyer’s fee to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, however, there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that in the batch of appeals, titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanti Devi & Ors., National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pratap Singh & Ors., and Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi & Ors., decided by this Court vide judgement dated 30.07.2012, it has been categorically held that lawyers’ fees cannot be granted.
4. Keeping in view the dictum of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, I set aside the impugned award dated 07.05.2012 qua the lawyer’s fee.
5. The second issue argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the compensation of Rs.75,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is on higher side.
6. On perusal of the record, I note that the respondent No.1/injured has suffered fracture of lateral candyle left leg (Tibia), therefore, keeping in view the injuries received by the respondent No.1/injured and the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No.9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011, the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental shock and temporary loss of amenities etc.
7. Keeping in view the pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental shock and temporary loss of amenities suffered by the respondent No.1/injured, I do not find any discrepancy in the order awarding Rs.75,000/- on account of non-pecuniary heads.
8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of.
9. Vide order dated 30.08.2012, this Court directed the appellant/Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the awarded amount (less counsel’s fee) along with upto date interest with UCO Bank, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
10. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance 50% of the awarded amount along with upto date interest with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of five weeks from today.
11. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in favour of the respondent No.1/injured in terms of the impugned award dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by him.
12. On deposit of balance award amount, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory deposit, if any, in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company. CM No. 14235/2012 (for stay) With the disposal of the appeal itself, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of. SURESH KAIT, J.
SEPTEMBER 12 2013 Sb/RS