Tag: 夜上海论坛FXO

  • Supreme Court Stays Delhi High Court’s Direction To Insurance Company To Provide Life-Time Warranty On Prosthetic Limbs Including Replacement

    first_imgTop StoriesSupreme Court Stays Delhi High Court’s Direction To Insurance Company To Provide Life-Time Warranty On Prosthetic Limbs Including Replacement Srishti Ojha10 Feb 2021 9:42 PMShare This – xSupreme Court has on Wednesday issued notice in a plea filed challenging the Delhi High Court’s order directing the insurance company to provide a life time warranty on the prosthetic limb used or purchased by the claimant. A division Bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari has also ordered a stay on the impugned order in the meantime, only to the extent that it…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginSupreme Court has on Wednesday issued notice in a plea filed challenging the Delhi High Court’s order directing the insurance company to provide a life time warranty on the prosthetic limb used or purchased by the claimant. A division Bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari has also ordered a stay on the impugned order in the meantime, only to the extent that it directs the artificial limb to carry a lifetime warranty including the replacement and providing telephone numbers of senior officials with their e-mail addresses. The petitioner was represented by Advocates Abhishek Kumar Gola and Nikhil Jain before the Court. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved of the Delhi High Court’s order, whereby it issued a slew of directions to the petitioner Insurance Company in terms of warranty on the prosthetic limb purchased by the claimant. Apart from the life time warranty, the Court directed the insurance company to ensue the good working condition of the prosthetic, and promptly provide for a replacement if it is required at any stage. The Insurer was directed to supply three telephone numbers of its senior officials along with their email addresses at which the injured could intimate regarding any malfunction or difficulty in usage of the artificial limb. The following are some of the other directions given by the Court’s impugned order, aggrieving the appellant insurer: Insurer to inquire from injured claimant twice a year regarding the working condition of the artificial prosthetic limb. Insurer company to take prompt action if there is any complaint in usage of the artificial limb and remove the difficulty within 3 days.Telephone numbers and email addresses to be communicated to the injured claimant within two days. The petition has questioned the jurisdiction of the court in passing the impugned order, raising an issue of whether it was correct for the High Court to exceed its appellate jurisdiction by giving such directions to the insurance company. According to the petition, these directions go against the mandate of assessment of just compensation as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017). The plea has cited another judgement of the top Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Zakir Hussain, where similar directions as passed by the Delhi High Court in the present case were set aside. The Court had held that the directions including, lifetime warranty for prosthetic and furnishing of telephone number by the insurer, should not have been issued and were deleted from the judgement. In the present case, the petitioner insurance company had issued a policy to the Respondent covering his vehicle. The respondent had met with an accident thereby sustaining grievous injury and 72% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb. The Tribunal, in response to the claimant’s petition seeking compensation, had awarded him compensation of Rupees 26,55,000. When appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court, the Court issued several directions, observing that the quantum of compensation was not the determinative factor of the proceedings, but rehabilitation of life long disability of the unofortunate victim was. According to the petitioner, the relief granted by High Court was not even claimed by the respondent and the additional directions passed regarding life long warranty of claimant’s artificial limb, etc was impractical as it would keep the case file open, and lay down a precedent that would make process of disposing motor accident claim awards very cumbersome, putting a heavy burden on the petitioner, which is a public sector undertaking.Next Storylast_img read more