Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.K. Ray, J.
THE ORISSA COOPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. — Appellant
Vs.
MANABENDRA MOHARATHA AND OTHERS — Respondent
M.A. No. 26 of 1974
Decided on : 23-01-1976
P. Roy, for the Appellant;
S.C. Ghosh, for the Respondent
The insurer of a vehicle involved in an accident has a right to challenge the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal, if the policy issued to the insured reserves all defenses available to the insured.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110-A - COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENT - QUANTUM OF DAMAGES - AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL - MODIFIED BY HIGH COURT - CROSS-OBJECTION REGARDING COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES TO CAR - NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation for treatment of injuries, after-care expenditure, loss of career as a pilot, loss of income from business and agriculture, and loss of study. The insurer of the truck involved in the accident appealed, challenging the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 2, the owner of the truck, filed a cross-objection challenging the award of compensation for damages to the car.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the insurer had a right to challenge the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal, as the policy issued to the insured reserved all defenses available to the insured. The Court found that the evidence regarding loss of income from agriculture and business, as well as the evidence regarding after-care expenditure, was unreliable and set aside the award of the Tribunal on these heads. The Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal on other heads of claim, but modified the award to reduce the total compensation to Rs. 9,200/-. The Court dismissed the cross-objection of Respondent No. 2, holding that it was not maintainable in the present appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurer had a right to challenge the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal? 2. Whether the evidence regarding loss of income from agriculture and business, as well as the evidence regarding after-care expenditure, was reliable? 3. Whether the findings of the Tribunal on other heads of claim were sustainable? 4. Whether the cross-objection of Respondent No. 2 was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The insurer had a right to challenge the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal, as the policy issued to the insured reserved all defenses available to the insured. 2. The evidence regarding loss of income from agriculture and business, as well as the evidence regarding after-care expenditure, was unreliable and set aside the award of the Tribunal on these heads. 3. The findings of the Tribunal on other heads of claim were sustainable. 4. The cross-objection of Respondent No. 2 was not maintainable in the present appeal.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the award passed by the Tribunal. The claimant was awarded Rs. 9,200/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment against the insurer, with a consolidated cost of Rs. 200/- for the High Court and the Tribunal. The cross-objection of Respondent No. 2 was dismissed without costs.
JUDGMENT :
B.K. Ray, J.—Manabendra Moharatha, Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, filed an application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which was disposed of by the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the loss sustained by him (Respondent No. 1) on account of a motor accident in which he received certain injuries. His case in the claim petition may briefly be stated thus: On 20-6-71 at about 11.00 a.m. the claimant was coming in a car bearing registration No. ORC 9111 from the aerodrome side towards Capital side at Bhubaneshwar. He negotiated the Janpath crossing and moved towards east. The car was then moving at a normal speed on the extreme left side of the road. Shortly after he had crossed the crossing a truck bearing registration No. ORC 7864 came from the opposite direction in a terrific speed being driven most rashly and negligently and dashed against the car. The truck was at that time being driven by the driver Narayan Das who was heavily drunk. The driver was not blowing any horn. The truck before dashing against the car uprooted two strong concrete pillars fixed on the extreme left side of the road and then pressed the car against another such pillar on the same side of the road. The car was completely damaged. The claimant received serious injuries and became almost unconscious at the spot. The breadth of the road at the place of accident was about 20 feet and there was no vehicle, except the two motor vehicles involved in the accident, at the place nor was there any other obstruction on the road at that time. The claimant after the accident was removed to the hospital in another car by a friend. The friend's car was following the claimant's car at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident the claimant's nasal bone was fractured and the claimant suffered from mental shock and pain. The claimant at the time of the accident was a meritorious student and was reading in the final M.A. class in the University College at Bhubaneshwar. He was also then getting pilot training in the aerodrome at Bhubaneswar. He could not appear at his final M.A. examination as he remained completely bed-ridden on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident for a long time. During the period he was bed-ridden he could not look after his electrical business and cultivation. Due to the permanent physical infirmity he got as a result of the accident he could not proceed with the pilot training. He accordingly lost his career in life. For loss of his career, for mental shock and pain, for loss of his income from agriculture and business, for loss of his education, for medical expenses incurred by him for his treatment and for after-care expenditure he claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. The owners of the car and the truck involved in the accident remained exparte before the Tribunal. The insurer of the truck, the present Appellant, only contested the claim of Respondent No. 1. The case of the Appellant before the Tribunal was substantially a denial of the allegations made in the claim petition.
3. Upon the evidence of Respondent No. 1 alone who was the only witness to have seen the accident the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the driver- of the truck and that the responsibility for the accident was on the said driver alone. Relying upon the evidence of the doctor examined by Respondent No. 1 the Tribunal held that a fracture of nasal bone caused a permanent disfiguration of the face of Respondent No. 1 and that Respondent No. 1 during treatment for the injuries was confined to bed for two months. The Tribunal, after discussion of the evidence on each item of claims of Respondent No. 1 awarded Rs. 1,000/- for treatment of the injuries; Rs. 2,000/- for after-care expenditure; Rs. 6,000/- for loss of career as pilot; Rs. 2,000/- for loss of income from business; Rs. 1,000/- for loss of agricultural income and Rs. 4,000/- for
