Delhi High Court · 2025-02-06
RAJENDER SINGH vs BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS
- Citation / case number
- MAC.APP.-704/2019 2025:DHC:941
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- RAJENDER SINGH
- Respondent
- BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS
Judgment text excerpt
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 6th February, 2025 + MAC.APP. 704/2019 & CM APPL. 2756/2025 RAJENDER SINGH .....Appellant S/o Late Dalip Singh R/o Vill. & P.O. Khaira Near Chandra Gas Agency Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043 Through: None versus 1. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Plot No. 7, 3rd Floor, Krishna Bhawan Janakpuri, New delhi-110058 .....Respondent No. 1 2. JAI BHAGWAN (Driver) S/o Sh. Jage Ram R/o 13, Vill. & P.O. Pandwala Kalan Najafgarh, New delhi-110043 .....Respondent No. 2 3. RAVINDER (Owner) S/o Sh. Girver Singh R/o H. No.736, Vill & P.O. Kapashera, New Delhi .....Respondent No. 3 Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Mr. Eileen Tirkey and Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocates for R-1. Signature Not Verified Page | 1 DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:13.02.2025 16:46:43 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The present Application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company seeking correction of the Arithmetical error in calculating “Loss of Future Earnings/Loss of Future Prospects” in paragraph 18 of judgment dated 06.12.2024, wherein while calculating the compensation towards loss of Future Prospects at 10%, the functional disability has been wrongly taken as 100% while it should have been 33% as confirmed by this court. 2. Submissions Heard and record perused. 3. The assessment of Functional Disability has been confirmed by this court in para 11 of the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2024. It was held as under: “11. Considering the nature of injuries and the Disability, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the Functional Disability as 33%. The conclusion of the learned Tribunal does not warrant