Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Bhuvaneshwar Prasad, J.
Mohd.Nizam Ansari
Versus
Satya Narain Behani, Solo Proprietor, Anand Travellers
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 82 of 1985 ;
Decided On : MAY 08, 1991
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SEC. 95(2) - INSURANCE POLICY - COVERAGE OF RISK - BURDEN OF PROOF - PERMANENT DISABLEMENT - ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION - PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY LOSS - MEDICAL EXPENSES - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SEC. 110-A - CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Khalasi, was injured in an accident involving a Mini Bus insured with the respondent Insurance Company. He filed a suit for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Claims Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs. 25,000, holding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that the appellant had suffered permanent disablement. Both the appellant and the Insurance Company filed appeals against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Claims Tribunal was correct in finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It also held that the appellant had suffered permanent disablement as a result of the accident. However, the court found that the Claims Tribunal had erred in assessing the compensation payable to the appellant. It held that the appellant was entitled to a higher amount of compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, as well as for medical expenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver? 2. Whether the appellant suffered permanent disablement as a result of the accident? 3. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation payable to the appellant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Claims Tribunal was correct in finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It relied on the evidence of the appellant and other witnesses, as well as the fact that the Insurance Company did not produce the insurance policy in court. 2. The court held that the appellant had suffered permanent disablement as a result of the accident. It relied on the medical evidence, which showed that the appellant had lost his left arm and four fingers of his right hand. 3. The court held that the Claims Tribunal had erred in assessing the compensation payable to the appellant. It held that the appellant was entitled to a higher amount of compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, as well as for medical expenses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appellant's appeal and dismissed the Insurance Company's cross-appeal. It modified the judgment of the Claims Tribunal and awarded the appellant a higher amount of compensation.
Bhuvaneshwar Prasad, J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal by the petitioner/claimant has been filed under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the Act), against the judgment dated 19-7-1985 and the decree signed on 29-7-1985 by Sri Bhagwan Prasad, the Additional District Judge-Cum-Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad (In short the Claims Tribunal) in Title Suit No. 34 of 1976 awarding a compensation to him for a sum of Rs. 25,000 payable by respondent No. 2 (the National Insurance Co. Ltd.).
2. It appears that two suits, namely, Title Suit Nos. 18 and 24 of 1976 were heard any disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 19-7-1985 by a common judgment since the claim made in both the suits arose out of the same accident. In Title suit No. 24 of 1976, the present appellent is the petitioner/claimant. His case is that on 24-2-1976 he was employed as Khalasi in the services Satnarain Behani, the owner of Mini Bus bearing registration No. BRO 2133 known as Anand Travellers. On the said date, the Mini Bus met with an accident near village-Pupunld on Chas, Dhanbad road. As a result of this accident, the left hand of the petitioner was completely amputeted from near the shoulder joint. His four fingers of the right hand were also amputated. Besides this the petitioner also suffered other bodily injuries. He was admitted in Bokaro Hospital, Bokaro, where he remained from 24-2-1976 till 9-4-1976 and he had spent a sum of Rs. 3000 towards his treatment. At the relevant time, the petitioner was getting Rs. 350 per month. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs 50,000 towards compensation for the injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident.
3. Defendant No. 1 Satnarain Behani (respondent No. 1) did not appear in the suit and did not contest the same. It therefore proceeded ex parte against him.
4. So far as defendant No. 2 the National Insurance Co. (respondent No. 2) is concerned, it contested the suit by filing a written statement. It did not admit that the alleged injuries were caused to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini Bus in question. It further denied that the monthly income of the petitioner was Rs. 350. It further denied that the applicant had spent a sum of Rs. 3,000 for his treatment in the hospital and stated that the amount of compensation as claimed by him was excessive. It further denied that it was liable to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioner. It further denied that the vehicle in question was insured with this defendant on the relevant date of the accident.
5. The learned claims Tribunal, howover, decreed the Title Suit No. 24 of 1976, in part, on contest with cost against defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 2) and ex parte without cost against defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1). It held that the present appellant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation in the suit. It further held that the Insurance Co. (defendant No. 2) was liable to pay the entire compensation amount of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner of Title Suit No. 24 of 1976. It accordingly, decreed the Title Suit No. 24 of 1976, in part, on contest with cost against defendant No. 2 and ex parte without cost against defendant No. 1. It further held that the entire decretal dues in the suit shall be reimbursed by the Insurance Co. (defendant No. 2).
6. In this appeal the appellant has contended that the judgment and the award of the learned Claims Tribunal is against the wright of evidence in so far as it relates the quantam of compensation, even when the learned claims Tribunal accepted that the monthly income to the petitioner was Rs. 350. It took an unreasonable view by calculating only Rs. 50 being the decrease in the earning capacity of the appellant. At the relevant time the appellant was working as Khalasi in the Mini Bus in question and as a result of accident he lost his left arm and four fingers of the right palm, as a result of which he i
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
