Sr. No. Orders IN TIIE HIGII COIIRT OF DELHI lIT NEW I'ELIII FAO 560/2001 & cM.LOr4/?OOr ORIEIVIAL INSURAIICE CO.UID "' Appellant Through Mr. P.K.Seth, Advocate' VCTSLTS SURAI PRAKASH \IERMA ..... Respondent Through IVIr.VinaY Kumar wittl ' IlIr. Anil Kumar Ttrakur, Advocates' 9b CORADI: IION'BLE MR. JT]STICE R.S. SODHI ORDER o,8.L2.2()(}4 This pefltion is directed against the Judgment dated 4.g.zCJc.I of ttre Motor Accident claims Tttbunal ila suit No.93/ IggT whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rg.29,39,OOO/- on account of inJurtes sustained in an accident on 9.9.1996. Ttre l:surance Company is aggrieved of tttis order prtmarily on the ground that the award. is on the htgher side. Heard counsel. le view of ttre Judgment of f]-re supreme SHRI SI{YAM SALES 02.03 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ?2 H.C.D.-I (a) Continuation Sheet ,-1 Court in Natonal Insurdnce Companyr Ltd. Vs. Nlcolletta Rohat$ 2OOZ tA SCC 456.. Ttre InsurEm.ce Company ts debarred from chaltenging the quantum of compensaton ln the circumstances of this case ir: hand. Counsel, however, contend.s that ttre award is even beyond that rvtrich was claimed. The setfled posiflon of lavrr novr is ttrat the Tribr-rnal can award higper award ttran claimed if the same is proved. Tflith the above observafion, FAO 560/2001 ts dismissed. M.10I /2OOL is also dismissed. 62A6.-62A7 Ttrese applicaflons ar€ allowed above order. and disposed of in view of DECEMBER ()8, 2OO4 bp AO 560/2001 page 2 of 2