Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3185 (RAJ)

Mohd. Yaqub v. Khatoon

2005-12-02

N.K.JAIN

body2005
Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These five appeals, arise out of the same accident and are directed against the common Judgment dated 14.03.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Neem-Ka-Thana, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The claimants filed an applications before the Tribunal for compensation in respect of injuries sustained by them in an accident, arising out of use of motor vehicle, took place on 31.08.1990, which were allowed by Tribunal and awarded the compensation in respect of injuries sustained by them. 4. The Tribunal, while deciding issue No. 8 held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the liability of the insured only up to Rs. 6,000/-. Being aggrieved with the same, the owner of the vehicle has filed two appeals, bearing SB CMA Nos. 1161/1996 and 1162/1996, arising out of the Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 58/1990 and 54/1990 for shifting of the liability of the entire amount of compensation on the Insurance Company. 5. The claimants have filed three appeals, bearing SB CMA Nos. 3/1999, 481/1999 and 826/1996, arising out of the Motor Accident Claims Case Nos. 53/1990, 58/1990 and 54/1990 for enhancement of the amount of compensation and for shifting of the liability on the Insurance Company to indemnify the entire liability of the insured in respect of amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 9,000/-in favour of the appellant Kamaludin in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 53/1990 i.e., CMA No. 3/1999, Rs. 20,000/-in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 54/1990 i.e., CMA No. 826/1996 and Rs. 31,000/-in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 58/1990 i.e., CMA No. 481/1999. 7. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellant as well as the owner of the vehicle in their appeals, contended that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in deciding issue No. 8 restricting the liability of the Insurance Company only upto Rs. 6,000/-, whereas these were injuries cases and liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited to indemnify the amount of compensation. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellant further contended that the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 31,000/-as referred above is a meagre amount looking to the nature of the injuries. Therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced. .8. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellant further contended that the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 31,000/-as referred above is a meagre amount looking to the nature of the injuries. Therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced. .8. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that so far as the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the insured appellant is concerned, the same is just and reasonable. So far as, the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, he does not disputes that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the Clause (b) of Sub-section 2 of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereas in the present case Clause (a) of Sub-section 2 of Section 147 of the Act was applicable and the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited. .9. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the finding of the learned Tribunal. 10. First, I take up the issue relating to the unlimited liability of the Insurance Company. While deciding issue No. 8, the learned Tribunal has observed that the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the passengers is limited up to Rs. 6,000/-and the said position has not been controverted by learned Counsel for the claimants. Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company was held to be limited upto Rs. 6,000/-. .11. This is a case wherein the accident took place on 31.08.1990 and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had already come into force w.e.f. 01.07.1989. .12. Sub-section 2 of the Section 147 of the Act, 1988, reads as under: 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-(2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in Sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- .(a) save as provided in Clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; .(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand; Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.” 13. The above provisions of law makes it clear that the liability of Rs. The above provisions of law makes it clear that the liability of Rs. 6,000/- was limited only in respect of damages to any property, but so far as the compensation in respect of injuries sustained in an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle are concerned, the same was covered by Clause (a) of Sub-section 2 of Section 147 of the Act and not by Clause (b) as held by Tribunal. Therefore, it is apparent that the Tribunal committed an illegality in applying Clause (b) of Sub-section 2, whereas in the present case Clause (a) of Sub-section 2 was applicable. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No. 8 is set aside and the issue No. 8 is decided in the manner that liability of the Insurance Company in the present case is unlimited. 14. Now, I come to another question about the enhancement of the amount of compensation. The Tribunal in Para 13 of the impugned Judgment has discussed the evidence relating to claimant Kamaludin, wherein it has been observed that as per Exhibit-61 the injury report, the injured sustained simple injury and for the same awarded Rs. 8,000/- as compensation. The bills in respect of medicine were taken into consideration and total amount of it, was coming to Rs. 670/-but in view of the fact that the claimant remained under medical treatment during period from 01.09.1990 to 15.09.1990 awarded further amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards medicine as well as under other heads. Therefore, total amount of compensation of Rs. 9,000/- was awarded. Learned Counsel for the claimant appellant could not point out from the record that any grievous injury or fracture was sustained by the appellant Kamaluddin. Although the claimant stated on oath that he sustained grievous injury, but as per injury report, there was no grievous injuries, but they were simple in nature. In these circumstances, I do not find any justification to enhance the amount of compensation. The amount of Rs. 9,000/-awarded as compensation appears to be just and reasonable and therein no interference is called for. 15. The Tribunal has considered the case of compensation in respect of appellant Smt. Khatoon in Para No. 14 of the impugned Judgment . Exhibit-18 injury report and Exhibit-19 x-ray report were considered by the Tribunal. Three grievous injuries were found as per x-ray report and other injuries were simple in nature. 15. The Tribunal has considered the case of compensation in respect of appellant Smt. Khatoon in Para No. 14 of the impugned Judgment . Exhibit-18 injury report and Exhibit-19 x-ray report were considered by the Tribunal. Three grievous injuries were found as per x-ray report and other injuries were simple in nature. There was no permanent disability due to these injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 19,000/-for grievous and simple injuries and further Rs. 1,000/-for medicine etc, therefore, total amount of Rs. 20,000/-was awarded, looking to the nature of the injuries. I do not see any illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal and in my view no case for enhancement of the amount of compensation is made out. 16. So far as the case of the appellant Faiz Mohd. is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed his case in Para No. 18 of the impugned Judgment . Exhibit-51 injury report and Exhibit-52 x-ray report were taken into consideration. Looking to the fracture in one rib and one finger and for other injuries the Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- was further awarded for medicine etc., therefore, total compensation of Rs. 31,000/-was awarded by the Tribunal. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out in the said finding of the Tribunal. The amount of compensation awarded in this case appears to be just and reasonable looking to the nature of the injuries. Therefore, in my view no case for enhancement of the amount of compensation is made out. 17. Consequently, the appeal Nos. 1161/1996 and 1162/1996 filed by the owner of the vehicle are allowed. The appeal Nos. 826/1996, 3/1999 and 481/1999 are partly allowed. The finding of the Tribunal in respect of issue No. 8 is set aside and it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the entire liability of the insured. The Judgment of the learned Tribunal is modified to that extent only. The Insurance Company has already paid Rs. 6,000/-in each case, therefore, it is now required to make the payment of balance amount of compensation in all cases within a period of two months with interest @ 12% per annum only from the date of filing of claim application i.e., 210.1990 till the date of payment/deposit of the balance amount. No cost.