SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(All) 415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash and B. K. Sharma, JJ.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD - Appellant
Versus
JAGDISH PRASAD PANDEY - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 917 Of 1991
Decided On : 04/09/1997

Advocates Appeared:
A.B.SARAN, Prakash Gupta

The insurer is entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in appeal.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - RIGHT TO CHALLENGE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION - INSURER CAN CHALLENGE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION IN APPEAL - SECTION 149(2) OF THE NEW ACT DOES NOT BAR INSURER FROM CHALLENGING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION AWARDED BY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

Fact of the Case:

The claimant, a 35-year-old clerk, met with an accident on 14.11.1989 while riding his motorcycle. He sustained serious injuries and his right leg had to be amputated. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded him compensation of Rs. 9,64,000/-. Both the insurer and the claimant filed appeals challenging the quantum of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the insurer is entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in appeal. Section 149(2) of the new Act, which corresponds to Section 96(2) of the old Act, does not bar the insurer from challenging the quantum of compensation. The court further held that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding excessive compensation to the claimant. The court reduced the compensation to Rs. 3,92,700/-.

Issues: 1. Whether the insurer is entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in appeal? 2. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding excessive compensation to the claimant?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurer is entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in appeal. Section 149(2) of the new Act, which corresponds to Section 96(2) of the old Act, does not bar the insurer from challenging the quantum of compensation. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Capt. Itbar Singh v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., (1958-65) ACJ 1 (SC), which held that an insurer is entitled to defend an action on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 96(2) of the old Act and no others. 2. The court held that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding excessive compensation to the claimant. The court took into account the fact that the claimant was only 35 years old at the time of the accident and that he had a monthly income of only Rs. 3,000/-. The court also considered the fact that the claimant was entitled to several concessions, including concession in travelling in the category of handicapped persons.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by the insurer and reduced the compensation awarded to the claimant from Rs. 9,64,000/- to Rs. 3,92,700/-.

OM PRAKASH, J.


( 1 ) THESE are the cross F. A. F. O. S. one filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the insurer) and the other by the claimant against the impugned order dated 1. 7. 1991, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad awarding compensation to the claimant to the extent of Rs. 9,64,000/- as against the total claim of Rs. 52,37,000/ -.

( 2 ) THE claimant while proceeding on his motorcycle UGB 4020 on 14. 11. 1989 with his security guard in connection with the election of the State legislature on the G. T. Road from Allahabad to fatehpur, met an accident at about 4. 30 p. m. near village Sikandarpur Bazaha, P. S. Kokhraj, district Allahabad with a truck DIG 4565 being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. When the motor cycle of the claimant was hit by the truck, he and his security guard both fell down and the former sustained serious injuries. The claimant was removed to Swaroop Rani hospital, Allahabad where he remained under the treatment of an Orthopaedics, namely, Dr. A. N. Verma, who consequent upon the injuries caused to the claimant had to amputate right leg of the claimant. The claimant then arranged an artificial limb from Jaipur which place he had to visit on several occasions. It is said that according to the medical opinion, the claimant suffered 90 per cent disability. It is averred that the claimant continued to work from 1976 till the date of the accident as a clerk in the chamber of one Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate and that prior to that he was a clerk in the chamber of Mr. K. M. Dayal, Senior Advocate. Besides being a clerk, it is averred that the claimant has agricultural land where from monthly agricultural income was Rs. 8,000/ -. The claimant claimed that his monthly earning from the chamber of Mr. Vinod Kumar, advocate was Rs. 3,000/- and that in addition to that he also worked in the chamber of another advocate Mr. Prakash Gupta wherefrom his monthly income was Rs. 1,000/ -. It is said that after the accident, the claimant ceased to be a clerk and so also he lost the agricultural income. It is said that the claimant was an active social worker when the accident took place and that he was also President of the Amitabh Bachchan Friends Association of Allahabad region besides being manager of the Kamasin Devi Junior High School and Secretary of the Rajrooppur Development society and that he was then contesting election of M. L. A. from the Allahabad (West) Vidhan sabha constituency.

( 3 ) CONSEQUENT upon the amputation of the right leg, it is said that the claimant will have to depend on an attendant or a helper throughout the life. He, therefore, claimed general damages on six counts to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- and special damages to the extent of Rs. 48,75,000/-on eight counts plus compensation.

( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal held that the claimant was hit by the truck being driven rashly and negligently on 14. 11. 1989; that he was 35 years old at the time of the accident; that his monthly income from the advocates chamber was Rs. 2,500/- only; that considering his age of 35 years and his life expectancy of 60 years, future loss of income was to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rs. 2500/- x 12 x 25) and loss of agricultural income was Rs. 20,000/ -. Total compensation on account of loss of earning and the agricultural income was taken at Rs. 7,70,000 (Rs. 7,50,000 + rs. 20,000 ). The Tribunal then awarded Rs. 17,000/-for medical expenditure taking into consideration the vouchers of Uma chemist, Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of 5 bottles of blood, rs. 1,500/- in round figure for good diet at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day for 73 days from 14. 11. 1989 to 17. 1. 1990 during which period claimant remained hospitalised, Rs. 1,000/- for future medical expenses and thus total sum of Rs. 20,500 was awarded towards special damages.

( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal then awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards transport charges holding that if such amount is deposited then regular month


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top