An insurer cannot take pleas beyond the scope of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, including questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the third respondent, the Insurance Company, in M. O. P. No. 14 of 1984 on the file of the First Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Visakhapatnam. In an accident that took place on 17-7-1983 at about 8. 30 p. M. near C. R. Reddy Square, Waltair, Uplands, the petitioner in the O. P. was injured as a result of which he received several injuries and a total dislocation of the left hipjoint heclaimed a compensation of Rs. 3,40,000/ -. The Tribunal, after considering the entire case, awarded Rs. 3,30,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application with a direction that Rs. 7,500/- paid as interim compensation should be deducted from the amount payable. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) IN this appeal Sri S. Hanumaiah, the learned counsel appearing for appellant- respondent No. 3, contends that the Tribunal committed a mistake in awarding rs. 330,000/-out of Rs. 3,40,000/-claimed. Thetribunal proceeded on the assumption that the permanent disability is 100%, while, in fact, the medical evidence shows that it is only 65%. He also contends that the accident took place as a result of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner who was riding the scooter. The accident took place as a result of the petitioner s scooter trying to overtake the jeep. No deduction has been given for the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Hanumaiah further contends that on the whole, the amounts awarded are highly excessive and they have no bearing to the reality of the case and the previous decisions relating to such injuries.

( 3 ) THE cross-objections are filed by the claimant claiming the amount of Rs. 10. 000/ - which was disallowed in the O. P. and 12% per annum interest from 6-1-1984 to 3-3- 1988, the date of the decree.

( 4 ) THE G. P. A. holder of the petitioner, who is now said to be in the United States of america, has filed the petition C. M. P. No. 18898 of 1989, for amending the OP. and for claiming additional compensation to a tune of Rs. 14. 04. 287-50 together with interest thereon on the ground that with a view to get complete cure, the petitioner was taken to america and he spent a lot of money and the medical authorities in America have certified that an expenditure of Rs. 41,71,437/- was incurred which is equal to $ 2,50,550/ -. According to the doctors, 80% of the medical bills should be paid by the insurance Company and the balance of 20% should be borne by the petitioner. The present claim is made in the petition for amending the prayers that Rs. 8,14,287-50 should be paid as medical expenses, Rs. 1,60,000/- as incidental expenses during treatment, Rs. 30,000/- for air travel and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering and Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for continuing permanent disability as well as loss of earnings. Thus a total amount of Rs. 14,04,287-50 is claimed.

( 5 ) THIS petition for amendment is resisted on the ground that there is no provision of law to countenance a claim of this type which is made long after the OP. was filed, and long after the limitation period for making the claim had expired. It is also contended that the so called expenditure is not immediately connected with the accident and after having had full treatment in India and after having recovered all the expenses, with a view to get complete cure, he had gone to United States and spent money much against the medical advice which was to the effect that the legs should be amputated. The insurance Company cannot be mulcted with such an amount. The petition is not maintainable.

( 6 ) IN this appeal filed by the Insurance Company, Mr. M. Venkata Rao, appearing for the respondent-claimant, contends that the Insurance Company is not entitled to raise the plea of quantum of damages. It has only to indemnify what has been awarded against r. 1 and R. 2. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document