Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Lok Pal Singh, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others - Appellant
Versus
Bhuwan Chandra Gunwant And Another - Respondent
Appeal from Order No. 559 of 2014 With Appeal from Order No. 603 of 2014
Decided On : 12-02-2020
Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for the Insurance Company, for the Appellant; Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for the respondents, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 173 – Appeals under – Against judgment and award passed by Tribunal – Validity of – Sole controversy before High Court – Whether compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and proper – Tribunal has granted compensation to tune of Rs. 22,30,000/- – Annual income of claimant Rs. 1,22,000/- – Multiplier of 15 has been applied on age of injured – Rs. 4,00,000/- each has been awarded towards medical expenses – Tribunal relying upon income tax return filed by injured—Compensation awarded to claimants is being reassessed – Award passed by Tribunal is modified – National Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 35,63,680/- along with 7% interest per annum from date of filing claim petition till date of its realization – Appeal filed by claimants allowed – Appeal filed by Insurance Company dismissed. (Paras 12 to 17)
eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 173 & ds v/khu vihysa & vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; o vokMZ ds fo:) & oS/krk & mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ,d ek= fookn & D;k vf/kdj.k }kjk vokMZ fd;k x;k izfrdj mfpr o U;k;laxr gS & vf/kdj.k #- 22]30]000@& dh jkf’k izfrdj ds :i esa iznÙk dj pqdk gS & ;kph dh okf"kZd vk; #- 1]22]000@& gS & pksfVy dh vk;q ij 15 dk xq.kkad ykxw fd;k x;k gS & fpfdRlh; [kpks± ds izfr #- 4]00]000@& izR;sd dk vokMZ fd;k x;k gS & vf/kdj.k us pksfVy }kjk nkf[ky fd;s x;s vk;dj fjVuZ ij fo’okl /kkfjr fd;k x;k & ;kphx.k dks vokMZ fd;s x;s izfrdj dk iquZewY;kadu fd;k tk jgk gS & vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns’k la’kksf/kr & us’kyu bU’;ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM izfrdj vFkkZr~ #- 35]63]680@& dh vnk;xh djsxh & nkok ;kfpdk nkf[ky djus dh frfFk ls mldh olwyh dh frfFk rd 7 izfr’kr izfr okf"kZd C;kt ds lkFk & ;kphx.k }kjk nkf[ky vihy LohÑr & bU’;ksjsUl dEiuh }kjk nkf[ky vihy [kkfjtA ¼izLrj 12 ls 17½
JUDGMENT
Lok Pal Singh, J. (Oral) - Both these appeals, under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 , have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/1 st Additional District Judge, Nainital in MAC Case No. 85 of 2010.
2. Facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that on 02.12.2009, at about 7:30 p.m., claimant- Bhuwan Chandra Gunwant along with his friend, namely, Ramesh Chandra Paldiya was waiting to a vehicle to go to Halduchaur, car no. UA04B-2045, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the claimant who sustained serious injuries on his both legs; he was taken to Krishna Nursing Home Haldwani where he got primary treatment, and referred to Bareilly; claimant got admitted at Ishan Hospital Rampur Garden, Bareilly, after operation his both legs were amputated from knee. According to the claimant, he remained hospitalized w.e.f 03.12.2009 to 02.01.2010 and spent about Rs. 7,00,000/- in his treatment. Due to amputation of his both legs, he became 100% disabled. Claimant was engaged in transport business, aged about 38 years and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. FIR dated 15.12.2009 has been lodged against the driver of the car.
3. Owner and driver of the vehicle filed their written statements denying most of the averments of the claim petition. It is stated that his friend, namely, Durga Singh Mehra was driving the vehicle, just to save the buffalo, accident was occurred. It is further stated he himself took injured to the hospital and provide assistance of Rs. 5000/- to him and gave information of the accident at Gadarpur Police Station. It is also stated that driving license of Durga Singh Mehra was valid and the vehicle was plied with relevant papers; vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., w.e.f. 02.09.2009 to 01.09.2010, and, compensation, if any, is liable to be paid by the Insurance Company.
4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. also filed its written statement denying averments of the claim petition. It is stated that claimant has claimed exorbitant amount. It is further stated that burden lies upon the owner of the vehicle to prove that vehicle was plied with valid papers and driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving license.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal formulated the following issues:-
1. Whether on 02.12.2009 at about 7:30 p.m, when claimant along with his friend, namely, Ramesh Chandra Paldiya was waiting for a vehicle, about 2 km ahead from Gadarpur at Rudrapur road, then car bearing registration no. UA04B-2045, which was allegedly driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the claimant due to which claimant sustained serious injuries on his legs and after operation both his legs were amputated from the knee and he become 100% disabled?
2. Whether the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the claimant?
3. Whether claimant is entitled for any compensation, if yes, then how much & from whom?
6. In documentary evidence, claimant adduced copy of FIR, G.D., copy of disability certificate, copy of driving license, insurance policy, medical bills etc. Claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Ramesh Chandra Paldiya, Dr. Kaushal Kumar, Ishan Hospital Bareilly, Dheeraj Kumar and Umakant Kafaltiya were respectively examined as P.W.2 to P.W. 5.
7. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 22,30,000/- as compensation against the Insurance Company.
8. Feeling aggrieved by impugned judgment and award appellant-Insurance Company has preferred AO No. 559 of 2014 whereby AO No. 603 of 2014 has been preferred by claimant-injured for enhancement of the compensation.
9. Since, the issue agitated in the appeal is only qua the quantum of compensation, and none of the appellants, be it the claimant- injured or the National India Insurance Co
