HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Mac App No. 113/2020

c/w

Cr. Obj. No. 1/2021

Reserved on : 29.09.2021

Pronounced on : 21.10.2021

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Amrit Sarin, Advocate

v/s

Rafaqat Hussain and others

.....Respondent(s)

Through :- Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.

The present appeal is directed against the award dated 31.01.2020

in File No. 87/Claim passed by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Rajouri, (for short MACT, Rajouri), whereby an amount of Rs.1,43,39,520/-

has been awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 alongwith

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its

realization.

2.

Factual matrix of this case, as gathered from the impugned

award, is that on 09.04.2014 the claimant/respondent No.1 received serious

injuries in a vehicular accident at Mandir Gala due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of offending vehicle No.JK02AD 4425 coming from

Sungri towards Rajouri.

3.

Claimant/respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before learned

MACT, Rajouri for claiming compensation on account of the injuries caused

to him. After putting to notice, the National assurance company Ltd., caused

2

Mac App No.113/2020

appearance and contested the claim petition. The following issues came to be

framed on 31.08.2016 by the Tribunal:

1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in road

traffic accident on 09.04.2014 at Mandir Gala

within the jurisdiction of police station Kandi, due

to rash and negligent driving by the respondent

No.1 while driving the offending vehicle No.

JK02AD/4425. OPP

2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what

amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled

to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether driver of offending vehicle was not

holding valid and effective driving license at the

time of accident? If so to what effect? OPR-3

4. Whether any terms and conditions of Insurance

police have been violated? If so to what effect?

OPR-3

5. Relief?

4.

The Tribunal after examining the entire record and on the basis of

the evidence led by the parties awarded Rs. 1,43,39,520/- alongwith interest @

7.5% per annum in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein. Being not

satisfied by the award impugned, appellant insurance company has filed this

Mac App No. 113/2020 challenging the award being excessive and exorbitant.

5.

The appellants have urged in the memo of appeal that the claim

petition has been wrongly decided and the amount of compensation is not in

consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law. The

legality of the award impugned is questioned on the grounds inter alia that the

insured vehicle at the time of accident was carrying 32 passengers against the

sitting capacity of 27, as such, the offending vehicle was overloaded and the

same was driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the certificate of

3

Mac App No.113/2020

insurance, registration and route permit. It is also averred that the

compensation on the head of attendant charges is very excessive and

exorbitant and moreover the claimant has not placed anything on record with

respect to the requirement of attendants. One of the other grounds is that the

compensation on the head of medical expenses is also wrongly awarded in

favour of the claimants.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Amit Sarin,

vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal fell in error while calculating the

amount of compensation under the head of attendant charges