Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Kumar and others – Respondents
AND
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan and others – Respondents
FAO (MVA) No. 259 of 2007 a/w CWP No.1514 of 2007.
Decided on : 4th July, 2014
For the appellant/petitioner:Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the appellant in FAO No. 259 of 2007 and Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 1514 of 2007.
For the respondents:Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 1514 of 2007 and Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 in FAO No. 259 of 2007. Nemo for other respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of disability certificates issued by treating doctors and the determination of the adequacy of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 173 - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, Section 173] - The court discussed the adequacy of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of the insurer. It referenced key legal provisions such as the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case law to determine the adequacy of compensation and the admissibility of disability certificates issued by treating doctors.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. The claimant challenged the adequacy of compensation, while the insurer questioned its liability and the excessiveness of the award. The court considered the evidence and medical bills to determine the compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and the writ petition, affirming the adequacy of the compensation awarded and the liability of the insurer. It held that the disability certificate issued by the treating doctor was admissible as evidence.
Issues: The issues included the adequacy of compensation, liability of the insurer, and the admissibility of disability certificates issued by treating doctors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence, medical bills, and case law to determine the adequacy of compensation and the admissibility of disability certificates issued by treating doctors.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and the writ petition, affirming the adequacy of the compensation awarded and the liability of the insurer. The court ordered the release of the amount deposited in favor of the claimant.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)
This appeal (FAO No. 259 of 2007) alongwith sister writ petition No.1514 of 2007 are outcome of a common judgment and award dated 12.4.2007, hence taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.
2. Through the medium of the appeal, the claimant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act, against the judgment and award made by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan in MAC Petition No. 20-S/2 of 2006, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,69,968/- with 7.5% interest came to be awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant and against insurer/respondent No. 3, for short “the impugned award”.
3. The claimant/appellant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation.
4. The insurer-writ petitioner, through the medium of the writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the insurer is not liable and impugned award is excessive.
5. The owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, it attained finality so far as it relates to them.
6. The moot question is whether the writ petition is maintainable when the insurer has other remedy available. It is beaten law of the land now that the writ is not maintainable and insurer cannot question the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation.
7. The only question now germane for consideration is whether the compensation in terms of impugned award is adequate or otherwise.
8. In order to determine the issue, a brief flashback of the facts, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal and the writ petition in hand is essential.
9. Rajesh Kumar injured became victim of a vehicular accident on 23.7.2001 when he alongwith his wife and son was going on his scooter from Solan towards Rajgarh-Solan, was hit by a Maruti Van bearing registration No. HR-03C-0661, which was being driven by its driver, namely, Pardeep Kumar-respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently and sustained the injuries. He was referred to Zonal Hospital Solan, from where he was referred to IGMC Shimla on 23.7.2001, remained admitted there in casualty department and was referred to PGI Chandigarh, but claimant decided to undergo treatment in Shimla Sanitarium hospital and was admitted in the said hospital, remained there admitted right from 26.7.2005 to 12.8.2005 where he was operated upon his right leg and right arm and rods were inserted, was discharged on 12.8.2005, and again admitted on 23.9.2005, has become permanent disable and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs, as per the breakups given in the claim petition.
10. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the driver, owner and insurer.
11. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:
(i) Whether petitioner has suffered injuries on account of rash/negligent driving of the Maruti Van by the respondent No. 2? OPP
(ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Whether the respondent No. 2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, if so its effect? OPR-3.
(iv) Whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Rules and the standard terms of insurance policy? OPR-3.
(v) Relief.
12. The claimant was asked to lead evidence and examined PW2 Dr. Anil Bansal, PW3 Dr. Avinash Sharma, Chief Medical Officer, PW4 HC Suneel Kumar PW5, Sameer Thakur and PW6 Pardeep Kumar as witnesses to prove his case and also appeared in the witnesses-box as PW1.
13. On the other hand, respondents have not led any evidence in rebuttal thus, the evidence led by the appellant/claimant remained un-rebutted.
14. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary and after exercising guess work while keeping in vi
