The main legal point established is the statutory liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the third party, even in case of breach of the insurance policy, and the right of the insurer to recover the same from the insured.

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,04,140/-awarded in favour of the Appellant for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 31.12.1992. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) held that the Respondent Insurance Company successfully proved the breach of the policy and thus exonerated it of its liability and made Respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation.

2. In the absence of any Cross-Appeal by the owner driver or the insurer, the finding on negligence has attained finality.

3. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:

(i) As per the disability certificate Ex.P-70, the Appellant was declared to be disabled to the extent of less than 40%, yet considering the injury the Appellant is disabled to work for whole life. The Claims Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss of earning capacity.

(ii) A consolidated sum of Rs.2,00,000/-awarded towards pain and suffering, disability and future treatment is very much on the lower side.

(iii) No compensation was awarded towards loss of marriage prospects.

.(iv) No compensation was awarded towards future treatment.

.(v) Even in the case of willful breach of the terms of the policy, the Insurance Company has statutory liability to pay the compensation to the third party with a right to recover the same from the insured. The Claims Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company completely.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company supports the judgment on the quantum and liability. It is urged that since the respondent successfully proved the breach of the terms of the policy, the Claims Tribunal rightly exonerated it of its liability.

5. The injuries on Appellant’s person were very serious. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the Appellant suffered rupture of urethra and anal canal was torn. Initially, the Appellant remained admitted in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital (LNJP Hospital) from 31.12.1992 to 23.01.1993. He underwent successive surgeries. On 06.01.1993 external fixator for fracture of pelvis was done in the Hospital. At the time of the discharge on 23.01.1993, apart from taking antibiotic, the Appellant was advised to clean the wound with Hydrogen Peroxide and normal Saline and Betadine. The Appellant’s miseries were not over. X-ray pelvis was done in February, 1993. He was advised daily dressing. Things did not improve. A perusal of the OPD Card dated 18.08.1994 shows that the Appellant was even referred to Psychotherapy for fear of impotence because of stricture urethra.

6. The Appellant remained an indoor patient in Army Hospital from 12.12.1996 to 19.12.1996 and from 01.03.1997 to 07.03.1997 where further procedures were performed. I have before me the record of Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt which shows that on 13.12.1996 internal Urethrotomy was attempted but was abandoned due to bleeding. On 03.03.1997 also, Urethrotomy was attempted under general anesthesia but was abandoned. A certificate dated 07.02.2000 issued by Dr. N.P. Gupta, Professor and Head of Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences(AIIMS) shows that the Appellant’s misery would never come to an end and he would have to attend the Hospital regularly throughout his life. The certificate given by Dr. N.P. Gupta is extracted hereunder:

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that Mr. Sanjay, 16 year old male, vide CR No.206767, is a case of road traffic accident fractured pelvis, ruptured urethra along rectourethral fistula. He underwent surgery for his stricture urethra, which was not successful. At present, he has colostomy and suprapubic catheter.

In view of the nature of his disease, he has to attend the Hospital regularly throughout his life for his frequent check up. He will need another surgery for his stricture urethra and rectourethral fistula.

Sd/