Heard.
This First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 170 Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 31.3.2014 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 459 of 2011; Kadim and another Vs. Hakim Ali and others whereby an amount to the tune of Rs. 4,85,000/- along with 7% simple interest has awarded as compensation to the claimants and against the appellant-insurance company.
As per brief facts of the case, Kadim, claimant no 1, is minor son of Abdul Rehman, claimant no. 2. On 15.10.2011, Kadim while coming on foot met with an accident with Dumper bearing registration no. HP 26A/0712, it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The injured, Kadim, had suffered serious injuries and his right leg was crushed by the Dumper due to which his right leg after knee was amputated. It is alleged that at the time of accident the injured was aged about 15 years. He was involved in work of selling milk of goats. Due to sickness of his father, he used to look after the business of goats and he used to graze his goats in the jungle. Due to injuries, the business has been affected and his income has reduced. Injured, Kadim, has become 90% handicapped.
Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company submitted that the compensation awarded to the claimant towards future treatment and cost of artificial limb, fees of Doctor and other ancillary expenses is to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to which Rs. 50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to amputation of right foot and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of remaining life has been awarded which is highly excessive. Learned Tribunal has also wrongly taken into consideration the notional income of injured as Rs. 2500/- per month which as per Second Schedule under the Motor Vehicles Act could be at the most Rs. 15,000/- per annum, in the case of injured of 15 years. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has also wrongly relied on the photocopy of driving license submitted by the claimants while coming to conclusion that the driver of the alleged vehicle was having valid driving license.
Submission is that photocopy of driving licence could not have been relied as an evidence. In support of his submission, learned counsel for appellant relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltc. Vs. Anbari and Others; 2000 (2) T.A.C. 789 (S.C.). Relevant para of the judgment on reproduction reads as under:
"The respondents though served have not appeared either personally or through a lawyer.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the point regarding validity of the driver's licence was raised by the appellant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal in accepting photocopy of a document purporting to be the driver's licence and recording a finding that the driver had a valid licence has committed a grave error of law. He has also submitted that the High Court has not dealt with the said contention of the appellant and without giving any reason has dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal and also the High Court have failed to appreciate that production of a photocopy was not sufficient to prove that the driver had a valid licence when that fact was challenged by the appellant and genuineness of the photocopy was not admitted by it. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the High Court in F.AO. No. 2368 of 1998 deserves to be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal and remit the matter back to the High Court for deciding the said appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties."
No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for appellant.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and gone through the records.
So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellant that the learned Tribunal has awarded excessive amount of compensation to the claimant no. 1 is concerned, it is to be noted that the learned Tribunal after coming to conclusion that the alleged accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Dumber bearing registration no. HP 26A/0712 while assessing the quantum of compensation has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another; 2013 (3) ACCD 1539 (S.C.) wherein guidelines for the purpose of compensation towards personal injury has been laid down. Relevant para of the judgment on reproduction reads as under:
" 13. It is settled law that compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) i.Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
ii.Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) iv.Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
v.Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
vi.Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
14. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses,loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
The learned Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumaresh Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2011 (4) T.A.C. 28 (S.C.) has come to conclusion that the loss of one leg below knee will drastically affect the ability to perform any manual work, as such, claimant is entitle for pecuniary loss. The learned Tribunal has also held that in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. 2012 (1) T.A.C. 1, the claimant is entitle to get cost of artificial limb. The learned Tribunal as such has come to conclusion that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- be awarded for the future treatment, cost of artificial limb, fees of Doctor and other ancillary expenses. I do not find that the sum awarded for the aforesaid purpose was in any manner high. At present cost of medical treatment has exorbitantly increased and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future treatment and cost of artificial limb cannot be said to be high. The learned Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused due to amputation of right leg and has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of maintenance and enjoyment of remaining life. The said amount also cannot be said to be in any manner high, considering the present cost of living. The claimant being a poor person may not have been able to bear the expenses of medical treatment and had only spent Rs. 15,000/- towards his medical treatment and had produced the bills and vouchers of Rs. 15,000/- only, however, it does not mean that he is not entitle for proper further medical treatment and cost of artificial limb, as such, I do not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel for appellant in this regard.
So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellant that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in calculating the notional income of the injured-claimant as Rs. 2500/- per month is concerned, suffice is to observe that the Apex Court in the case of Govind Yadav (supra) has laid down that the notional income should not be less than Rs. 36,000/- per annum in case of injured of 24 years old worker which comes to Rs. 3000/- per month. In the present case, the claimant is a 15 years young boy engaged in the business of his father. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant-injured as Rs. 2500/- per month which in no manner can be said to be high. As such, I do not find any reason to grant any indulgence in this regard.
Now, I come to the last part of argument advanced by learned counsel for appellant that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in relying on the photocopy of the driving licence while coming to conclusion that the driver of the alleged vehicle involved in the accident was having a valid driving licence.
It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the photocopy of the driving licence was not visible and hence not admissible in evidence. In this regard, learned counsel for appellant relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anbari and Others (supra).
It is the settled proposition of law that in the Motor Accident Claim cases the Court is not bound to observe strict Rule of Code of Civil Procedure or Evidence Act. The claimants are required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt (Munni Devi and others Vs. Babu Lal and others; 2011 (1) ACCD 555). The burden of proving validity of driving licence of driver in case the plea was taken by the appellant-insurance company that the same was not a valid document, was on the appellant-insurance company itself.
The learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that no evidence was produced by the insurer to show that the driving licence of Hakim Ali was not a valid document and the said driver had not a valid driving licence at the time of occurrence of the accident.
Learned counsel for appellant has not been able to establish before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court that the said driving licence was not a valid document.
In the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the photocopy of the driving licence of the driver of the said vehicle was not admissible as an evidence.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. It is not a fit case for admission. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
The judgment and award dated 31.3.2014 is hereby confirmed. The appellant shall pay the compensation to the claimant in terms of the aforesaid judgment and award.
The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal shall be remitted back to the Tribunal forthwith for that purpose.
Order Date :- 11.7.2014 Santosh/-