IMPORTANT POINT
Where Insurance Company failed to prove insurance policy it was rightly held not entitled to plead limited liability under the policy.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 166—Injury compensation claim petition—Claimant, an advocate by profession, riding a two wheel scooter was hit by tempo and suffered permanent disability—Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,83,000/- including Rs. 1,12,000/- towards loss of income and 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 20,000/- on account of hospitalization and medicines and Rs. 1000/- for damage to scooter—Single Judge enhanced compensation amount to Rs. 2,90,000/- with interest at 12% in appeal—Division Bench further enhanced compensation under head of “loss of income” from Rs. 1,12,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/—Appeal by claimant—As regard future loss of income, Tribunal noticed Income Tax return of claimant for year prior to accident and annual loss to private practice was taken at Rs. 700/- p.m.—Single Judge holding that claimant would require outside assistance besides services of his wife awarded a sum of Rs. 57,600/- Division Bench considering that appellant might have to engage a driver awarded Rs. 700/- p.m. from date of filing of petition till award passed by Tribunal—No evidence that claimant bought a car or at that point of time he could afford a car—Compensation under that head was not liable to be increased—Claimant having suffered some injury would not by itself mean that he would not be in a position to rise in profession—No reason to enhance compensation further.
       Held : He, as noticed hereinbefore, filed an application for amendment of the claim petition only at a much later stage. The learned Tribunal noticed the extent of injuries suffered by him and also took into consideration the evidences of doctors who had examined and treated him and awarded compensation under different heads. In regard to his future loss of income, the Tribunal noticed his income tax returns for the financial year prior to his meeting with the accident as also the year in question. The annual loss to his private practice was taken at Rs. 700/- per month.(Para 11)
       The learned Single Judge adopted a rather liberal approach. He took into consideration the entire evidence on records including the extent of disability allegedly suffered by Appellant. It was opined:
       "...The appellant is lawyer by the profession. This profession needs unhampered concentration for the full devotion to the cases he might handle. When bodily pain and suffering subsist and there is even danger of such pain resulting in attack of the engina it certainly amounts to a great incapacity in performance of his professional duties by the appellant. The agony and suffering on this account which last with his life is difficult to measure in terms of money but I am decidedly of the view that damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal under this head are grossly inadequate. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances brought on the record, I shall assess damages under this Head at Rs. 1,00,000/-." (Para 12)
       It was held that he was also entitled to the services of his wife who in turn would require some outside assistance and on that head awarded a sum of Rs. 57,600/-. He furthermore awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. (Para 13)
       The Division Bench, in our opinion, had also taken a somewhat liberal view in favour of Appellant than he deserved. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that Appellant might have to engage a driver and for the said purpose awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of filing of claim petition till the award by the Tribunal. Appellant now wants the amount of compensation to be enhanced on that head. We decline to do so for more than one reason.(Para 14)
       Appellant has not proved that he had bought a car. He even on the date of accident was merely riding on a scooter. He has not brought on record any evidence to show that even at that point of time he could afford a car. As indicated hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court was more than generous in enhancing the amount of compensation.(Para 15)
       Appellant herein before us is in legal profession. He may have suffered some injuries but the same would not mean that he would not be in a position to rise in his profession only by reason thereof. We, therefore, decline to enhance any amount of compensation in this behalf. (Para 19)
       (ii) Motor Accident Claim—Interest —Grant of interest was discretionary—Single Judge awarded interest at 12% p.a.—Rate of interest now granted was 9% p.a. keeping in view drastic fall in bank rate—No reason to interfere with discretion exercised by High Court.(Paras 17 and 21)
       (iii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 147 and 149—Insurer’s liability—Accident caused by a tempo—Insurer’s plea that its liability was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- under policy—Insurance Company failed to prove insurance policy though policy copy was placed on record—It was rightly held that presumption would arise that liability of insurer was unlimited.
       Held : The learned Tribunal, however, committed an error in opining that the insurance policy was not required to be proved. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our opinion, rightly held that the insurance policy having not brought on records, a presumption would arise that the liability of the insurer was unlimited.(Para 12)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. Appellant herein is a practicing lawyer. While riding on a scooter, he met with an accident as a tempo which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1 dashed therewith. He is said to have suffered a permanent disability.

3. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. An application for amendment of the said claim petition was filed raising the amount of compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- .

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by a judgment and award dated 15th March, 1986 awarded a sum of Rs.1,83,000/-, details whereof are as under:

"i)Damage on account of Rs. 50,000.00agony, shock pain and suffering of the appellant

ii)Damages on account of Rs. 20,000.00hospitalization including medicines

iii)Damages on account of Rs.1,12,000.00loss of income

iv)Damages on account of Rs. 1,000.00the damage caused to the scooter

TotalRs. 1,83,000.00"

4. The Tribunal as regards the purported plea of the Insurer that its liability is limited, opined :

"...A perusal shows that liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- Counsel for the claimant contended before me that as the insurance policy has not been tendered the same in evidence, so, should be held that the liability of insurance company is unlimited. It is no doubt true that the insurance policy has not been tendered the policy in evidence. But as the insurance policy is only on the file, I am of the view that this court taken note of it. So, it is held that the liability of insurance company is only to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- and interest on the same and rest of the amount will be paid by the respondent No. 1. The issue is decided accordingly."

5. An appeal thereagainst was filed by Appellant before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,90,000/-. A direction was also issued upon Respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing thereof till the date of realization. The learned Single Judge also set aside the findings of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

6. Still being not satisfied, an intra-court appeal was filed by Appellant herein. Before a Division Bench of the High Court, the question which was raised on behalf of Appellant was as to whether he having suffered permanent disability would be entitled to any further compensation as he may have to engage a driver to drive his car in future. A contention as regards higher amount of compensation was also raised towards purported loss of prospective income. The Division Bench by reason of the impugned judgment enhanced only the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income from Rs. 1,12,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- relying on the decision of this Court in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(2001) 8 SCC 197].

7. Still not satisfied, Appellant is before us.

8. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant, would inter alia submit that the High Court committed an error in denying enhanced compensation to Appellant despite noticing the fact that he has attained permanent disability and he would not be able to drive a vehicle himself and, thus, will have to appoint a driver. It was urged that the High Court failed to consider the question of grant of enhanced compensation without taking into consideration his prospective income. It was further submitted that although interest on an enhanced amount should have been granted, the High Court erred in not doing so without assigning any sufficient or cogent reason therefor.

9. Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company would, on the other hand, submit that although the insurance policy was not proved, the same having brought on records, the liabil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2006 Supreme(SC) 999

IMPORTANT POINTWhere Insurance Company failed to prove insurance policy it was rightly held not entitled to plead limited liability under the policy.

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Where Insurance Company failed to prove insurance policy it was rightly held not entitled to plead limited liability under the policy.