Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1795 (ALL)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PRATAP SINGH

2002-12-02

M.P.SINGH, S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2002
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, M. P. SINGH, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the insurer-appellant. The insurer-appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 2,75,560 as compensation together with simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the claimants on account of the injuries received by claimant No. 1 Pratap Singh, who was aged about 34 years at the time of accident, causing permanent disability to the extent of 40 per cent in the accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a matador insured by the appellant. ( 2 ) THE claimants had come up with the case that the offending motor vehicle by which the injured Pratap Singh was travelling, collided with a tractor in which iron rods (sariya) were loaded, causing serious injuries to the injured Pratap Singh in his eyes, forehead and head resulting in disfigurement of his face. After accident he was hospitalised in the District Hospital, muzaffarnagar and his condition being serious was shifted to M. Prakash Nursing home, Meerut where major operation of his face was done but in spite of long treatment and expending huge amount in his treatment still he could not recover and now he has become mentally retarded and thus his disability has reached to the extent of 100 per cent. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the insurer-appellant has urged that taking into consideration the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. ( 4 ) IN this connection, it may be noticed that while computing the total amount of compensation the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 1,30,560 towards 40 per cent permanent disability and the remaining amount towards the mental agony and expenses incurred in getting the medical treatment, etc. Thus, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries received by the injured Pratap Singh including disfigurement of his face, the amount of compensation at a figure of Rs. 2,75,560 cannot be said to be excessive and the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity. ( 5 ) IT has next been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a breach of terms and conditions subject to which the insurance policy had been issued covering the risk. 2,75,560 cannot be said to be excessive and the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity. ( 5 ) IT has next been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a breach of terms and conditions subject to which the insurance policy had been issued covering the risk. The contention is that the offending motor vehicle was being used for hire and was carrying 15 persons, therefore, the liability ought to have been shifted upon the owner of the matador and not upon insurer-appellant. ( 6 ) IN this connection the Tribunal has relied upon the principles laid down in number of cases and the Tribunal appears to have been of the view that the insurer 908 could not discharge the onus of proof which lay on it in this regard. ( 7 ) BE what it may, so far as statutory liability of the insurer-appellant contemplated under the provisions of the Motor vehicles Act in the matter relating to the payment of just compensation determined by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is concerned, the mere fact that there was violation of the terms and conditions subject to which the insurance policy had been issued cannot have the effect of exonerating the insurer of his statutory liability cast upon him in this regard to pay the amount to the third party. ( 8 ) IN such a situation, it is always open to the insurer to get the amount, paid in excess, refunded to it from the owner-insured in an appropriate proceedings initiated before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal in which proceedings such a dispute can be decided between the insurer and insured after affording an opportunity of hearing to the insured in accordance with law. ( 9 ) IT will, therefore, be open to the insurer-appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings for the refund of the amount paid by it to the claimants and establish the breach of the terms and conditions subject to which the insurance policy had been issued. ( 10 ) THE dismissal of this appeal will not come in the way of insurer-appellant initiating such proceedings. ( 10 ) THE dismissal of this appeal will not come in the way of insurer-appellant initiating such proceedings. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings of the tribunal returned against the appellant but has not been able to demonstrate that the findings can be taken to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference therein. ( 12 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances, as brought on record, no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference in the impugned award. ( 13 ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances brought on record, this appeal is devoid of merits, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. ( 14 ) AS prayed, amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this court by the appellant-insurer under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act be remitted back to the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal concerned so that it may be disbursed to the claimant. Appeal dismissed. .