Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3452 (PNJ)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gurmeet Singh

2006-09-06

M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
JUDGMENT M.M.S. Bedi, J. - This judgment shall dispose of an appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the Cross-Objections filed by respondent No. 1 Gurmit Singh against Award dated 21.12.1988 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short the Tribunal) awarding a sum of Rs. 36,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1 Gurmit Singh on account of amputation of his right leg. 2. Gurmit Singh in his cross-objections has claimed the enhancement of compensation awarded to him. Respondent No. 1 Gurmit Singh had received multiple injuries including crushing of his leg while he was travelling in truck No. PAT-3098 on 10.10.1986 from Moga to Morinda, driven by Jeet Singh, respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 Gurmit Singh claimed to be an agriculturist. He used to go to Moga to sell vegetables. He was earning Rs. 14000/- to Rs. 15000/- per annum by sale of vegetables from 1-1/2 killa of land owned by him. The appellant Insurance Company, driver and owner had contested the claim petition, as a result of which the following issues were framed :- "1. Whether Gurmit Singh suffered injuries by rash and negligent driving by Jit Singh of truck No. PAT-3098 on 10.10.1986 near village Jandali, P.S. Sahnewal ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether Jit Singh driver was driving the truck in the course of his employment and held a valid licence ? OPR-1 & 2 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable against respondent No. 3 by reason of preliminary objection No. 2 ? OPR-3 5. Relief." 3. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimant and against appellant and respondent 2 and 3. 4. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the driver and against the Insurance Company holding that he was holding a valid driving licence. 5. Issue No. 2 was decided against the Insurance Company and a sum of Rs. 36,000/- was awarded on account of compensation for the injuries and the disability suffered by respondent No. 1 Gurmit Singh, Cross-Objector. 6. Issue No. 4 was decided against the appellant holding that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of compensation on the basis of findings on all the issues. 7. The claimant-Cross-Objector was awarded a compensation of Rs. 6. Issue No. 4 was decided against the appellant holding that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of compensation on the basis of findings on all the issues. 7. The claimant-Cross-Objector was awarded a compensation of Rs. 36,000/- along with 12% interest from the date of claim petition till realization. 8. The Cross-Objector-respondent No. 1 is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 and has challenged the inadequacy of the compensation awarded on account of the disability suffered by him. The Insurance Company- appellant is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 4 so far as it has been held liable to pay the compensation on account of the fact that the driver and other gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle are not entitled to any compensation from the Insurance Company. 9. I have considered the relevant contentions of both the parties. So far as finding on issue No. 1 is concerned, there is not much controversy left for adjudication by this Court in first appeal. So far as Issue No. 2 is concerned, the adequacy of the compensation has to be considered on the basis of the allegations leveled by the Cross-Objector. Claimant Gurmit Singh had suffered injuries, which as per P.W.2 Dr. Tom Thomas were as follows :- "Crushing injury to the right leg 10cm x 5cm x 3cm incised wound over the mid leg region. Underlying muscles and tissues were badly crushed." 10. The right leg of claimant was amputated below the knee to save his life. He has suffered permanent disability. In order to determine the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had assessed the annual income of claimant Gurmit Singh between Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per annum for the year 1986 relying upon his admission in his cross-examination that he was getting Rs. 20,000/- per annum from the sale proceeds of the vegetables and awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of loss of earning, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs. 3252/- on account of hospital charges and Rs. 2750/- on account of special diet and miscellaneous charges. A total sum of Rs. 36,000/- on account of injuries, loss of income and permanent disability suffered by him was awarded. The approach of the Tribunal does not seems to be reasonable while awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 3252/- on account of hospital charges and Rs. 2750/- on account of special diet and miscellaneous charges. A total sum of Rs. 36,000/- on account of injuries, loss of income and permanent disability suffered by him was awarded. The approach of the Tribunal does not seems to be reasonable while awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings and permanent disability. 11. Learned counsel for the Cross-Objector has sought enhancement on the ground that on account of permanent disability the Cross-Objector-respondent, being an agriculturist has certainly suffered physical and material loss and the compensation awarded is not just, equitable or fair. He has placed reliance on Raj Kumar v. Swaran Singh, 1988(3) PLR 198 wherein on account of amputation of left leg, the disability was considered to the extent of 85% and a sum of Rs. 4.00 lacs was granted on account of all counts i.e. medical expenses, special diet, costs of nursing/attendant, and loss of earning. 12. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the Cross- Objector, circumstances of the case and the expenses incurred on medical treatment of the physical injury and disability. The Tribunal has taken into account the receipts of medical expenses, produced on the basis of medical bills Ex.PA and the amount assessed on account of special diet. On the basis of the vague averments regarding expenditure the finding of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. The claimant is a vegetable grower and vendor and has not admittedly suffered any financial loss as his earning capacity has not been decreased. The percentage of disability has not been established by producing any disability certificate but the award of Rs. 10,000/- on account of permanent disability for amputated leg in the year 1986 seems to be in adequate. The said amount on account of pain and sufferings and permanent disability is hereby enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The remaining amount of compensation awarded will remain the same i.e. Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 3252 for medical expenses and Rs. 2750 for special diet. The claimant-respondent No. 1 will be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 1,26,000/-. 13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently urged that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as the injured was travelling in a goods vehicle and that Gurmit Singh had paid Rs. 2750 for special diet. The claimant-respondent No. 1 will be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 1,26,000/-. 13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently urged that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as the injured was travelling in a goods vehicle and that Gurmit Singh had paid Rs. 7.50 as fare for travelling in the truck. The Tribunal while relying upon Dhaniraj v. Manorma, AIR 1988 Orissa 254, held that the driver and other persons in a goods vehicle are third parties to the contract entered into between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to Gurmit Singh. 14. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parmod Kumar Agarwal and others v. Smt. Mushtari Begum and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4360, wherein in a case of death of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle it was held that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal has to be initially paid by the insurer and later it can be recovered from the owner through execution proceedings without filing any regular suit. 15. I have considered in facts and circumstances of the judgment in Pramod Kumar Agarwals case (supra). In the said case the accident (sic) Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, it was held that the insurer is liable to indemnify the Award. In the said case the Tribunal and the High Court had granted compensation to the claimants holding that the vehicle was a goods vehicle and the owner had not insured the vehicle for carrying passengers in a goods vehicle. In view of the terms and conditions of the policy note it was held that the insurer was not liable to make payment of the compensation and it was the owner, who had to make the payment. The Honble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court holding that the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal would be paid by the Insurance Company (insurer) and it would be entitled to recover the same from the owner in execution proceedings without filing a suit. 16. The Honble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court holding that the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal would be paid by the Insurance Company (insurer) and it would be entitled to recover the same from the owner in execution proceedings without filing a suit. 16. Following the ratio judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Parmod Kumar Agarwals case (supra), it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation for pain and suffering and permanent disability i.e. Rs. 90,000/- (enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till realization with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The remaining amount of compensation will remain the same i.e. Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 3252 for medical expenses and Rs. 2750 for special diet. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Cross-Objections filed by respondent No. 1 are partly allowed in the above terms. Appeal dismissed.