Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1332 (ALL)

National Insurance Company v. Hari Prakash

2003-05-23

K.N.OJHA, S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2003
JUDGMENT : S.P. Srivastava, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act feeling aggrieved by the award determining an amount of Rs. 1,52,200/- (One lac fifty two thousand and two hundred) as compensation to which the injured-claimant was found entitled to on account of grievous injuries received by him in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle insured by the present appellant covering the risk. 2. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and material brought on record, had come to the conclusion that the injured was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident and was having an income of Rs. 1,500/- per month. For the expenditure incurred by the injured on his medical treatment, the Tribunal had found it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and for diet etc. another amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The extent of permanent disability was found to be only 30%. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed that no effort was made by the insurer to get permission envisaged u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned against it by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is, however, not disputed that no effort was made by the insurer-appellant to obtain the requisite permission envisaged u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The whole effort of the insurer-appellant is to get reduced the liability fastened upon it under the impugned award in respect of the payment of the amount of compensation. The effect of the omission to obtain permission envisaged u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been considered in quite detail by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 456 . The ratio of the aforesaid decision stands squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as brought on record. 5. Taking into consideration the ratio of the aforesaid decision which stands attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the insurer-appellant is not entitled to get reduced the liability in regard to payment of the amount of compensation in question fastened upon it under the impugned award. 6. 5. Taking into consideration the ratio of the aforesaid decision which stands attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the insurer-appellant is not entitled to get reduced the liability in regard to payment of the amount of compensation in question fastened upon it under the impugned award. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of the grievous injuries and the disabilities resulting therefrom, the amount of compensation awarded cannot be held to be unjust and excessive specially taking into account the amount of medical expenses already incurred. 7. There is no merit in this appeal, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court by the appellant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned within one month from the date an application is filed by the appellant for the purpose so that it may be adjusted against the amount required to be deposited under this order.