Court No. - 25
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3487 of 2004 Appellant :- New India Assurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Mohan Mashih & Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.C. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Mahendra Nath Pandey
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. First Appeal From Order No. 3487 of 2004 and First Appeal From Order No. 338 of 2005 arise from the same judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and were therefore connected and listed together.
2. First Appeal From Order No. 338 of 2005 was filed by the claimant for increasing the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal has been dismissed in default due to absence of the counsel for the appellant in the said appeal even in the revised call. The order has been separately transcribed in the order-sheet of First Appeal From Order No. 338 of 2005.
3. List has been revised. Sri S. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant is present. However, no one appears for the claimants-respondents.
4. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgement and award dated 3.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 326 of 2001 (Mohan Mashih Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another).
5. The claimant-respondent No. 1 filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 326 of 2001 alleging that he was seriously injured on 5.6.2001 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. U.P. 84-5114 by its driver and consequently prayed for a compensation of Rs. 9,75,000/- from the defendants-respondents for the medical expenses incurred by him in treatment of injuries and also for loss of income as a result of the said injuries. In the aforesaid petition, the appellant, i.e. the New Indian Assurance Company was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and Shri Devendra Pal Singh, i.e., respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the vehicle was impleaded as defendant No. 2.
6. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 326 of 2001, the defendants-respondents filed their written statements denying the allegations made in the petition and also denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimant- respondent No. 1.
7. In light of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues for consideration. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were regarding the negligence of the Driver of the vehicle in causing the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant and regarding the insurance of the vehicle at the time of accident. Issue No. 3 framed by the Tribunal was whether the driver of the vehicle had valid driving license at the time of accident, and the defendant liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Issue No. 4 framed by the Tribunal was regarding the amount of compensation which the claimant was entitled to receive from the defendants.
8. In its judgement and award dated 3.11.2004, the Tribunal held that the claimant was injured in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and also held that the appellant, i.e., the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant for the injuries as the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident and at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving license.
9. I am not entering into the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues as, during the arguments, the counsel for the appellant has pressed only the issue regarding quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal to be paid to the claimant. While deciding Issue No. 4, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the claimant alongwith an interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the compensation awarded to the claimant is on the higher side and the same was awarded without any evidence regarding the income of the claimant and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries caused in the accident.
11. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgement and award dated 3.11.2004, passed by the Tribunal.
12. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 326 of 2001, the claimant had alleged that due to the accident, his back bone was injured resulting in paraplegia and because of the aforesaid he had suffered 75% disability. The medical certificate and disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Safdarganj, New Delhi proving the said fact were produced by the claimant before the Tribunal. Relying on the aforesaid certificates, the Tribunal held that the claimant had suffered 75% disability due to the injuries caused in the accident and because of the injuries the claimant was dependent on other persons for his daily activities. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any illegality or error in the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal which are based on evidence on record.
13. In the Tribunal, the claimant filed bills and receipts showing that Rs. 1,00,084/-, was spent by him on his treatment and also alleged that Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- would be required for future treatment of injuries. However, the Tribunal after considering the report of the surveyor of the New India Assurance Company, i.e., the appellant, did not accept the amount alleged by the claimant to have been spent on his treatment and held that the claimant had been able to prove expenses of only Rs. 19,503.40. In light of the statement of the claimant himself that the concerned medical practitioner of the Safdarganj Hospital, New Delhi had advised the claimant that his injuries cannot be cured, the Tribunal refused to consider the expenses, which the claimant alleged would be incurred by him in treatment of his injuries in future. There is no illegality in the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal which are based on evidence on record and do not require any interference.
14. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the claimant-respondent No. 1 that he was earning Rs. 5,500/- per month as labour in a Cold Storage and also as Electrician, the Tribunal awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs.
1 lac to the claimant-respondent No. 1 for pain and suffering and a further Rs. 1 lac for loss of amenities. The Tribunal awarded an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant on the ground that even though the claimant had not been able to prove all the receipts and the bills showing the alleged medical expenses incurred by him but expenses must have been incurred by the claimant on transportation and medicines considering the injuries that the claimant had suffered in the accident. In view of the aforesaid, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant for the medical expenses. The said findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any illegality or error in the said findings of the Tribunal.
15. Compensation to be awarded in an accident case cannot be determined with mathematical precision and therefore there has to be some guesswork in determining compensation. There is no illegality in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, hence no interference is required by this Court in an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act, 1988. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Anurag/-