Back
1987 Supreme(P&H) 582
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.V.Sehgal, J.
Tejinder Singh Gujral
Versus
Inderjit Singh
First Appeal First Order No. 830 of 1986,
Decided On : AUGUST 31, 1987
The insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured for the entire amount of compensation awarded if it fails to prove on record the insurance policy or establish its terms and conditions or the extent of its liability.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - [SECTION 110-A] - INSURANCE - [SECTION 149(2)] - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - EXTENT OF LIABILITY - INSURANCE COMPANY LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY INSURED FOR ENTIRE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED - DAMAGES - [SECTION 166] - ASSESSMENT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - PAIN AND SUFFERING - LOSS OF INCOME - ATTENDANCE ON INJURED PERSON - MEDICAL EXPENSES - INTEREST - [SECTION 171] - RATE OF INTEREST - 12% PER ANNUM FROM DATE OF FILING CLAIM APPLICATION TILL REALISATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a lawyer, sustained multiple injuries, including fractured ribs and cervical spine, in a road accident caused by the negligence of respondent No. 1. He filed a claim application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking compensation for damages, including pain and suffering, hospitalization, loss of income, and damage to his scooter. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,83,000, with proportionate costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of the claim application. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal challenging the limit imposed on the liability of the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, while the appellant filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, is liable to indemnify respondent No. 1 for the entire amount of compensation awarded, as it failed to prove on record the insurance policy or establish its terms and conditions or the extent of its liability. (Para 12) 2. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation under the head of damages for pain and suffering, considering the nature of the injuries, the continuous pain and suffering, and the impact on his professional life. The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000. (Para 23) 3. The appellant is entitled to damages for the attendance on him by his wife, mother, and servant, considering the extra attendance necessitated by the injuries. The compensation is assessed at Rs. 300 per month for 16 years, totaling Rs. 57,600. (Para 24) 4. The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization.
Issues: 1. Whether the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, is liable to indemnify respondent No. 1 for the entire amount of compensation awarded? 2. Whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation under the head of damages for pain and suffering? 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to damages for the attendance on him by his wife, mother, and servant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Where the insurance company fails to prove on record the insurance policy or establish its terms and conditions or the extent of its liability, it is liable to indemnify the insured for the entire amount of compensation awarded. (Para 12) 2. The assessment of damages for pain and suffering should consider the nature of the injuries, the continuous pain and suffering, and the impact on the injured person's life and profession. (Para 23) 3. The injured person is entitled to damages for the attendance on him by family members or servants, considering the extra attendance necessitated by the injuries. (Para 24)
Final Decision: 1. F.A.O. No. 395 of 1986 is allowed, and the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, is held liable to make payment of the entire amount of compensation awarded to the appellant. 2. F.A.O. No. 830 of 1986 is partly allowed, and the appellant is held entitled to recover compensation amounting to Rs. 2,90,600 from respondents Nos. 1 and 2, with joint and several liability. Respondent No. 2 shall be liable to make payment of the entire amount of compensation. 3. The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. 4. The appellant is entitled to costs of Rs. 1,000, to be recovered jointly and severally from respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
1. This Judgement shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 395 and 830 of 1986. The former has been filed by Inderjit Singh owner and driver of the tempo No. CHW 4257 which was the offending vehicle while the latter has been filed by Mr. Tejinder Singh Gujral Advocate who sustained injuries in the accident. Both these appeals are directed against the award dated 15th March, 1986 made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal) deciding a claim application under Sec.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) filed by Mr. Tejinder Singh Gujral. Reference to the parties in this judgement shall be made from F.A.O. No. 830 of 1986.
2. The appellant suffered injuries in a road accident which took place on 6-8-1984 at 9.30 p.m. He was driving scooter No. CHR 6 in Chandigarh and was coming from Sector 33 via Labour Chowk to Sector 7. Near the traffic lights of the crossing of Sectors 22 and 21 he gave horn, used dipper and slowed down his scooter but when he was near the divider, tempo No. CHW 4257 owned and being driven by respondent No.1 came from the side of Sector 20 at a fast speed. The said tempo took a sharp turn, hit the divider and then struck against the scooter of the appellant. As a result, the appellant fell down from his scooter which was also damaged. One Kesar who was coming a little distance behind chased the tempo and stopped it. In the same tempo the appellant in an injured condition was taken to the P.G.I. The appellant filed the claim application under Sec.110-A of the Act before the learned Tribunal wherein he alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by respondent No. 1. The damage caused to the scooter was to the tune of Rs. 1,000.00 . The appellant himself sustained multiple injuries and also fracture of his ribs. He has become permanently disabled due to injuries. He spent Rs. 8,000.00 on his treatment up to the date of filing of the application i.e. 23-11-1984. He further alleged that he had been advised further operations to avoid the fear of paralysis. These operations would be done at Jaslok Hospital, Bombay which would involve expenditure of Rs. 80,000.00 . He claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.00 including the damages for mental agony, pain and suffering and loss of income. In the application as originally filed the damages claimed were to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000.00 only. The application was, however, amended with the leave of the learned Tribunal in January, 1986 and the claim for damages was raised to Rs. 5,00,000.00 .
3. In his written statement respondent No. 1 alleged that he was bringing the tempo at a normal speed. In order to avoid the accident he took the tempo to the side of the divider and hit against it. Thereafter the tempo hit the scooter of the appellant. He alleged that the claim made by the appellant was excessive. The Insurance Company respondent No. 2 also filed its reply to the claim application. It denied its liability, inter alia, on the ground that there is no valid document such as a copy of the Insurance Policy. The claim made in the application was styled as vague and incomplete in material particulars not disclosing any cause of action against respondent No. 2. The claim was also labelled as highly exaggerated and inflated. The averments in the application that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 at the time of accident was admitted but respondent No. 2 denied its liability.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the accident took place due to/because of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 ?
2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount if any is the petitioner entitled as compensation and from whom ?
3. Relief.
5. Issue No. 1. was decided in favour of the appellant. It was held that respondent No. 1 had caused the accident by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. tempo No.
