High Court
Case Details
CO 11/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.C. Keya
Legal Reasoning
l, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the quant um of compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Cachar at Silchar, in MAC Case No.505/2005, whereby and whereunder an amount o f Rs.80,000/- has been awarded as compensation with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization and directing the insurance company to satisfy the said award, there being no dispute relatin g to the contract of insurance between the owner of the offending vehicle and th e insurance company. Cross objection has been filed by the claimant/ respondent praying for e nhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Member, MACT. The respondent as claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- alleging th at on 11.12.2004 while he was travelling in a motor vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-11B-4102 as passenger from Silchar to Amraghat at about 9 A.M., due to ra sh and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle, it dashed against an other vehicle (Mahindra Maxx) bearing Registration No.AS-11B-5612, as a result o f which he receives serious injuries on his person, for which he was admitted in Silchar Medical College and Hospital on the date of accident i.e. 11.12.2004. I t has further been pleaded that his monthly income was about Rs.5,000/- and he w as aged about 40 years. The claim has been resisted by the insurance company by filing written s tatement denying the claim and putting the claimant to the strictest proof there of. The owner of the offending vehicle has filed the written statement admitting the factum of accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant, further cont ending that the vehicle was driven by the driver having a valid driving licence and the compensation, if any, awarded may be directed to be paid by the insuranc e company because of the contract of insurance between the owner of the offendin g vehicle and the insurance company. The claimant/respondent in support of the claim has examined himself as claimant witness No.1 and proved a number of documents including the accident in formation report and also the discharge certificate issued by the Silchar Medica l College and Hospital discharging the claimant from the hospital on 24.12.2004. The claimant has been cross-examined by the insurance company. No evidence, how ever, has been led either by the insurance company or by the owner of the offend ing vehicle. The Tribunal having regard to the evidence adduced has passed the award as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. In the present appeal the insurance company has not arrayed either the o wner of the offending vehicle or the driver, as there is not dispute relating to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver and also the insurance coverage, apart from the factum of accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal is a gainst the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Member and not against the factum of accident, the injuries sustained due to rash and negligent drivin g as well as insurance coverage. According to the learned counsel, the insurance company has challenged the nature of injuries sustained as well as the quantum of compensation awarded. That being the position, this Court is only required to scrutinize as to whether the quantum of compensation awarded is just and proper. Referring to the impugned award, it has been submitted by the learned co unsel appearing for the appellant that though the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities of life and also another amount of Rs.10,0 00/- towards the medical expenses, apart from Rs.35,000/- for pain and suffering , there was no occasion for awarding another Rs.25,000/-, even without indicatin g the reason therefor. The learned counsel submits that having regard to the nat ure of injuries sustained by the claimant an amount of Rs.50,000/- maximum would be the just and proper compensation, which ought to have been awarded by the le arned Member. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits tha t having regard to the discharge certificate issued by the Silchar Medical Colle ge and Hospital (Ext.-1), wherefrom it appears that the claimant has suffered th e fracture of right humorous and right elbow apart from other injuries sustained and also the evidence that because of the injuries sustained by him, he could n ot pursue his normal life, an amount of Rs.80,000/- cannot be termed as a just a nd proper compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, which, theref ore, needs to be enhanced at least to Rs.1,00,000/-. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for th e parties and also perused the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record. The claimant in his deposition has stated that he was hospitalized on 11 .12.2004 and was discharged therefrom on 24.12.2004. It has further been stated that because of the accident he suffered fracture injuries in the right humorous and right elbow, apart from other injuries sustained. Such version of the claim ant has the support from the discharge certificate issued by the Silchar Medical College and Hospital, where the claimant was admitted. It appears therefrom tha t the claimant has suffered fracture injuries on the right humorous and right el bow, for which he was treated for about 12 days as indoor patient and was discha rged from hospital on 24.12.2004. The claimant, that apart also could prove the medical expenditure to the tune of Rs.11,000/- by producing the money receipts. The claimant in his deposition has also stated that due to the injuries sustaine d, he was not in a position to perform his job properly till the date of making the deposition. The claimant though was cross-examined by the insurance company, nothing contradictory could be brought during such cross-examination. The month ly income of the claimant has also been proved between Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, I am of the view that the learned Member has rightly awarded Rs.35,000/- for pain and suffering. The claimant would also be entitled to Rs.11,000/- towards the medical expenses, for which the vouchers are produced. That apart, the claimant would also be entitle d to Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of amenities to the normal life and also Rs.10 ,000/- for loss of income for about 2(two) months. The claimant, therefore, woul d be entitled to Rs.66,000/-, which amount shall carry interest @9% per annum fr om the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 16.05.2005 till the date of realiz ation. There being no dispute relating to the contract of insurance between the appellant/insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle, the award sh all be satisfied by the insurance company. The awarded amount with interest shal l be deposited by the insurance company before the learned Member, Motor Acciden t Claims Tribunal, within 1(one) month from today, less the amount, if any, alre ady deposited. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the insurance co mpany shall be refunded to the insurance company. The award passed by the learne d Member, MACT, is accordingly modified to the extent as indicated above.
Decision
The appeal as well as the cross objection are accordingly disposed of.