Shimla: The Himachal High Court has revised and increased the compensation amount awarded to a petitioner by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal in thes state's Una district. Earlier the Tribunal in its judgement had ordered the insurance company to hand over a sum of Rs 15,000 to petitioner Dilbagh Singh.
After revising the judgement of the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, the high court bench of Justice Virendra Singh directed the insurance company to provide Rs 3.21 lakh to the petitioner, instead of Rs 15,000. The petitioner Dilbagh Singh will get Rs 3.21 lakh as compensation now. The decision of the Tribunal was amended by the high court thereby increasing the compensation amount.
The petitioner's wife had died in a road accident on June 16, 2007, while returning home after paying obeisance at Vaishno Devi shrine in Jammu and Kashmir. In the application to the court, the petitioner stated that his wife had died in a road accident due to the negligence of the driver. While amending the lower court's order, the high court in its ruling stated that the "work of a housewife cannot be measured in terms of money".
Also read: Hyderabad Dist Consumer Panel slaps Rs 22 crore-plus fine on insurance company
Justice Virendra Singh in his order issued to the insurance company said that Rs 3,21,500 should be given to the applicant as compensation. Apart from this, the high court also imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on the insurance company. Earlier, the lower court (Claims Tribunal) in its decision had stated that the applicant was not able to prove before the court the income of his wife who died in the accident.
On the other hand, it was argued before the high court that the lower court was not able to see evidence properly presented before it by the petitioner. The high court after going through the records related to the case, arrived at the conclusion that the work of a housewife cannot be equated with money. Thereafter, the high court amended the lower court's decision and increased the compensation amount to Rs 3.21 lakh. The court also directed the insurance company to pay six per cent interest to the petitioner.
