SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
INDIRA JAIN, J.
The United India Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Alpesh & Another - Respondents
First Appeal No. 197 of 2006
Decided On : 09-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :D.N. Kukday, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P.G. Anandikar, Advocate.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act - [Damages for expenses incurred on medical treatment and medicine, Expenses incurred on special diet and conveyance, Damages for loss of past and future income, Damages for loss of amenities in the life, Damages for loss of expectation of life, Damages for adverse effect on marriage prospects, Damages for pain and sufferings of the accident] - The court analyzed the admissibility of the permanent disability certificate, the extent of permanent disability, and the compensation awarded for loss of income and amenities in life. The court found that the disability certificate was not duly proved and the compensation awarded was just, fair, and reasonable. The court also set aside the imposition of penal interest.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a vehicular accident where the claimant suffered serious injuries, resulting in 90% permanent disability. The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, including damages for loss of income, amenities, and adverse effects on marriage prospects.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disability certificate was not duly proved, and the compensation awarded for loss of income and amenities in life was just, fair, and reasonable. The court also set aside the imposition of penal interest.

Issues: The issues included the admissibility of the permanent disability certificate, the extent of permanent disability, and the justifiability of the compensation awarded for loss of income and amenities in life.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disability certificate should have been proved by the Medical Officer who issued it and that the compensation awarded was just, fair, and reasonable. The court also ruled that penal interest cannot be levied in default of payment of compensation within a specific period.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the imposition of penal interest and maintained the rest of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.130/1992. By the said judgment and award, tribunal saddled the insurance company with the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application within 45 days, failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till its realization. Being aggrieved, insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:

(i) Respondent is an injured in vehicular accident. On 28.9.1991, claimant was proceeding with his friend Sagar Gajanan Lakhe on motorcycle bearing No. BTB- 5454. Sagar was riding the motorcycle and injured was pillion rider. They reached near Steel Sales Corporation and stopped the motorcycle due to red signal. That time, truck bearing No.MOT-9277 came from rear side and gave a dash to motorcycle. Both Sagar and claimant fell down. Rider of motorcycle died on the spot. Claimant suffered serious injuries.

(ii) Initially injured was admitted to Government Medical College and Hospital at Nagpur for four days. As he was resident of Bombay, he was shifted to Lincoln Nursing Home at Bombay. His right hand was operated there. Then he was shifted to Jaslok Hospital, Bombay.

(iii) It was the case of claimant that he suffered 90% permanent disability. He was serving as an Electronic Engineer with Weightronic Private Limited, Bombay and getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,500/-. Due to disability, he could not continue his employment and was required to remain without job, as disability has affected his physical capacity to earn. According to claimant, disability was to such an extent that he could not marry. He is being maintained by his old mother. She is doing some petty work. Applicant submitted that permanent physical disability has caused serious inconvenience, disappointment, discomposure, frustration, mental stress and loss of confidence to him. He claimed Rs. 4,50,000/- towards compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act including interest thereon.

(iv) The owner of vehicle was served with the notice. He remained absent and application proceeded ex-parte against him.

(v) Respondent no.3/appellant resisted the petition vide written statement (Exh.14). It was contended that two vehicles were involved in the accident and owner and insurer of another motorcycle were also necessary parties. A plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was raised by insurer. Regarding occurrence of accident and liability of insurance company to pay compensation, defence was of total denial.

(vi) From the rival pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed issues at Exh.22. Injured examined himself as a solitary witness. Insurance company did not examine any witness in support of its defence. Considering the evidence and documents placed on record, Tribunal came to the conclusion that owner and insurer were liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- particularized under various heads in paragraph 10 of the Award. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were directed to pay within 45 days with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application and on failure to deposit within time at the rate of 12% interest per annum from the date of application till its realization.

3. Appellant assails the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that compensation awarded as per clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) in paragraph 10 of the judgment is on too higher side. The submission is that Tribunal has relied upon disability certificate (Exh.39) issued by Medical Officer, Nair Hospital, Bombay and the said certificate was not duly proved in accordance with the law. Learned counsel submitted that author of permanent disability certificate was not examined and for f































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top