Jammu and Kashmir High Court Reiterated that Interest Cannot be Awarded on the Loss of Future Income

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

On 30 June 2020, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Dhar heard the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Bilal Ahmad Mir and others, via video-conferencing. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s award of compensation but modified the aspect of interest.

Facts of the Case

On 14 July 2004, the claimant traveled in a vehicle from Srinagar to Tral. The said vehicle met with an accident, resulting in him to suffer serious injuries. The injuries led to the amputation of his right arm. He sought a compensation of Rs 29 lakhs from the owner, driver, and the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, the insurance company contended that there was a breach of a policy condition.

The Tribunal held that there was no such breach. It also awarded a compensation of Rs 15,10,000/- to the injured. It directed the insurance company to pay the said amount with 6% interest. The Tribunal added failure of the same would lead to a payment of 9%penal interest. Aggrieved by this Award, the Insurance Company filed an instant appeal in this Court.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant company argued that the offending vehicle’s driver booked under Section 3 and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This shows that he was not carrying a valid driving license when the accident occurred. Despite that, the Tribunal concluded that there was no policy condition breach. The company contended that the amount of compensation awarded is exorbitant, excessive, and unjust.

The claimant did not prosecute the matter before the Tribunal for two years. Even then, the Tribunal awarded the interest for this period in favor of the claimant. Thus, the Tribunal is neither liable to pay the penal interest nor the interest in the loss of future income. The functional disability of the injured is not 100%. Thus, Tribunal was not justified in computing the compensation based on the same. It is also not necessary to award future attendant charges.

Arguments of the Respondent

The claimant-respondent argued that the company did not prove that the offending driver did not hold a valid driving license when the accident occurred. Thus, the Tribunal’s award of compensation is reasonable.

Court’s Analysis

The copy of the driving license is not on record of the Tribunal. The burden of proof of breach of policy conditions is on the insurer-company. In this case, the company did not produce any evidence about policy condition breach. The company has missed the opportunity to do so.

Hence, the Tribunal’s conclusion that there was no breach of policy the condition cannot interfere with. The appellant argued that Tribunal was not justified in computing the compensation. The doctors’ statement shows that the claimant needs an attendant throughout his life. He cannot even perform his daily chores as he lost his working limb. Thus, the Tribunal is justified in awarding future attendant charges. It is settled law that no interest can be awarded in respect of future income. The Tribunal is not competent to award penal interest on the awarded sum.

Thus, the Tribunal was not justified in either awarding interest on the loss of future income or in awarding the interest of 9% per annum in case of default.

Court’s Decision

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s award of compensation. However, the impugned order stands modified. The awarded sum under the head ‘loss of future income’ will not carry any interest. The direction about payment of penal interest of 9% is also set aside. In view of the same, the Court disposed of the appeal.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -