TEJINDER SINGH GUJRAL versus INDERJIT SINGH AND ANR.

TEJINDER SINGH GUJRAL versus INDERJIT SINGH AND ANR.

Appellant not entitled to further compensation for engaging a driver or loss of prospective income as no evidence was shown for ownership or affordability of a car nor that injuries would prevent professional advancement. Interest rate at 9% per annum is reasonable considering bank rates; insurer liability presumed unlimited when policy not tendered.

Parties
Appellant: Tejinder Singh Gujral; Respondent: Inderjit Singh; Respondent: Insurance company (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Compensation for Personal Injury, Motor Vehicle Act Liability, Interest on Compensation, Insurance Liability Limits
Tort Law Motor Accident Claims Compensation for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Act Liability Interest on Compensation Insurance Liability Limits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tejinder Singh Gujral

Appellant

Inderjit Singh

Respondent

Insurance company (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation for permanent disability, prospective income, and engaging a driver due to injuries sustained in a motor accident
  2. 2 Whether the liability of the insurer is limited when the insurance policy is not brought on record
  3. 3 Whether a higher rate of interest should be awarded on enhanced compensation

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant not entitled to further compensation for engaging a driver or loss of prospective income as no evidence was shown for ownership or affordability of a car nor that injuries would prevent professional advancement. Interest rate at 9% per annum is reasonable considering bank rates; insurer liability presumed unlimited when policy not tendered.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No costs
  • No enhancement of compensation