Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Aman Mittal and others - Respondents
FAO No. 347 of 2014 a/w CO No. 18 of 2015
Decided on : 08.01.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant:Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 cross objector.
Nemo for respondents No. 2 and 3.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for assessing compensation in injury cases, including the need to compensate for loss of amenities, future medical expenses, and loss of earning capacity, as well as the burden of proof on the insurer to avoid liability.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - [R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, AIR 1995 SC 755], [National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, AIR 2004 Court 1531], [Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217], [Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SC 3104], [Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR SCW 3120], [Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, 2015 AIR SCW 3105], [Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085], [Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787], [Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771]
Fact of the Case:
The claimant-injured was involved in a traffic accident and sustained severe injuries, resulting in permanent disability. The claimant filed a petition seeking compensation, which was awarded in their favor by the Tribunal. The insurer and the claimant both challenged the award on the grounds of excessive compensation and adequacy of compensation, respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the findings of the Tribunal regarding the negligence of the driver and the permanent disability of the claimant. The court also discussed the principles for assessing compensation in injury cases and enhanced the awarded amount, dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross-objections. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry of the Court within eight weeks.
Issues: The issues included the adequacy of compensation, liability of the insurer, validity of the driving license, violation of insurance policy terms, collusion between the parties, and the maintainability of the claim petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in various judgments to determine the adequacy of compensation, liability of the insurer, and validity of the driving license. The court emphasized the need to compensate the claimant for the loss of amenities, future medical expenses, and loss of earning capacity. The court also discussed the burden of proof on the insurer to avoid liability and the maintainability of the claim petition by the claimant's wife.
Final Decision: The court upheld the findings of the Tribunal, enhanced the awarded compensation, dismissed the appeal, and allowed the cross-objections. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry of the Court within eight weeks.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
Appellant-insurer has called in question the judgment and award, dated 05.07.2014, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 17N/ 2 of 2009, titled as Aman Mittal versus Shri Aman Kumar Bansal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,78,100/with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its final realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the insurer (for short "the impugned award").
2. The insurer, by the medium of this appeal, has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive and the claimant-injured was also negligent.
3. The claimant-injured has also questioned the impugned award, by the medium of cross-objections on the ground of adequacy of compensation.
4. The driver and owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.
5. In order to determine the appeal as well as the cross-objections, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the facts of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant case.
6. Aman Mittal, i.e. the claimant-injured, became the victim of a traffic accident on 21.12.2008, at about 10.00 P.M. at Village Dhaulakuan, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, which was caused by driver, namely Shri Bhura Ram, while driving motor cycle, bearing registration No. HP18B1234, rashly and negligently, hit the claimant-injured, who was walking on the correct side of the road, sustained injuries, was immediately taken to a Private Clinic at Paonta sahib, thereafter to Himalayan Hospital Doiewala, Dehradun wherefrom was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained under treatment for pretty long time, as he was in coma.
7. The claimant-injured, after longdrawn treatment, has filed claim petition through his wife, Mamta Mittal, and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/, as per the breakups given in the claim petition.
8. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.
9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 15.03.2010:
"1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and ngliegnt driving of respondent No. 2 Bhura Ram while driving motorcycle No. HP18B1234 and that the petitioner Aman Mittal susained in the said accident? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether driver Bhura Ram of motorcycle No. HP18B1234 did not possess a valid and effective driving licnce at the time of accident? OPR3
4. Whether motorcycle No. HP18B1234 was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR3
5. Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, if so to what effect? OPR3
6. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR3
7. Relief."
10. Claimant-injured has examined Dr. Mohit Gupta as PW1, HC Desh Raj as PW2, Shri Kulwant Singh as PW3 and his wife, Smt. Mamta Mittal, herself appeared in the witness box as PW4. The insurer has examined SI Sucha Singh as RW1, Shri Naveen Sharma as RW2 and Shri A.S Vaish as RW3.
11. Parties have also placed on record disability certificate (Ext. PW1/A), copy of FIR (Ext. PW2/A), medical bills/cash memos (Ext. P1 to P159), investigation report (Ext. RW3/A), copy of driving licence (Ext. RY), insurance policy (Ext. RX) and report of investigation relating to the driving licence (Mark-A).
Issue No. 1:
12. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant-injured has proved that driver-Bhura Ram had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time, hit the claimant-injured, who was walking on the correct side of the road, sustained injuries and became permanently disabl
