Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1387
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G.P. MITTAL, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Montu & Others
MAC.APP. 188 OF 2011
Decided On : 11-05-2012
For the Appellant:Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
The court emphasized the importance of proving a conscious breach of policy terms and upheld the compensation based on the seriousness of the injuries sustained.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 3/181 - Compensation awarded for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - The court upheld the compensation awarded to the injured party and dismissed the appeal by the insurance company - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 3/181
Fact of the Case:
The first Respondent was hit by a truck driven by the second Respondent in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries. The Appellant Insurance Company challenged the compensation awarded, claiming that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and the owner did not have a permit to drive the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first Respondent suffered serious injuries and upheld the compensation awarded. The court also held that the insurance company did not discharge the burden of proving a conscious breach of the policy terms.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the compensation awarded, the proof of disability certificate, and the breach of policy conditions by the driver and owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the compensation based on the serious nature of the injuries and the Disability Certificate issued by a Govt. hospital. The court also held that the insurance company failed to prove a conscious breach of the policy terms.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal by the insurance company and upheld the compensation awarded to the injured party.
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugned a judgment dated 06.12.2010 on the ground that the compensation of Rs.2,04,500/-awarded in favour of the first Respondent Montu was excessive and that the Appellant Insurance Company was not exonerated in spite of the fact that it was proved that the driver Alimuddin Sheikh (Respondent No.2) did not possess a valid driving licence and the owner Hari Kishan Sharma (respondent No.3) did not have a permit to drive the vehicle.
2. On 15.02.2003 at about 2:15 P.M. the first Respondent was proceeding on his bicycle towards Gian Mandir Road, Jaitpur when he was hit by a truck No.HR-38-C-7817 driven by the second Respondent in a rash and negligent manner.
3. The finding on negligence is not challenged by the Appellant Insurance Company.
4. The first Respondent was removed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). He suffered very serious injuries in his abdomen, left shoulder, right eye and forehead. He underwent three surgeries in AIIMS. He had to be put on ventilator from 19.02.2003 to 26.02.2003. He remained admitted in AIIMS from 16.02.2003 to 04.03.2003. The Appellant although recovered from the injuries, but suffered partial loss of vision in respect of his right eye. He was issued a Disability Certificate by Hindu Rao Hospital showing that he had suffered 30% partial visual disability.
5. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:-
Awarded Compensation under by the
Sl. No.
various heads Claims Tribunal
1. Loss of Income Rs.7,500/-Rs.
2. Pain & Suffering 50,000-Rs.
3. Special Diet 25,000/-Rs.
4. Conveyance 10,000/-Rs.
5. Loss of Appearance 25,000/-
6. Attendant’s Care Rs. 6,000-Disability (loss of future Rs.
7. income) 81,000/-Rs. Total 2,04,500/-
6. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company:-
(i) The Disability Certificate showing 30% visual disability was not proved in accordance with law. The Claims Tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.81,000/-towards the loss of earning capacity.
(ii) It was established that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and the owner did not have a valid permit in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. The Appellant Insurance Company was thus entitled to be exonerated.
7. It is borne out from the record that the first Respondent suffered very serious injuries. He had to undergo three surgeries and was battling for life. He remained on ventilator for seven days. Although, it was claimed that the first Respondent used to sell vegetables and earned Rs.3,000/-per month, yet as he was a minor, his income was treated as notional i.e. Rs.15,000/-per annum for award of the loss of earning capacity.
8. The discharge summary issued by AIIMS and the Disability Certificate mark ‘X’ issued by Hindu Rao Hospital reveal that the first Respondent suffered disability to the extent of 30% in his right eye. It is true that the first Respondent ought to have examined the doctor to prove the disability certificate (Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343), yet considering the serious nature of injuries including the fact that the certificate was issued from a Govt. hospital coupled with the fact that just a sum of Rs.81,000/-was awarded towards loss of future income, I would not like to remand the case back for proof of the disability certificate in accordance with law and would not interfere with the impugned judgment on the award of Rs.81,000/-under this head.
9. Regarding breach of the policy condition, I would first deal with the issue of fake licence which has been agitated by the Appellant. It is true that the second Respondent was challaned for driving the vehicle without a licence. Challan of a driver for an offence under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not sufficient to show that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. (Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors., MAC APP.329/2010 decided
