Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1058 (MP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nitin

2010-10-14

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
JUDGMENT Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal under section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 30.6.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonkutch, Distt. Dewas, in Claim Case No. 3 of 2007. 2. The respondent No. 1 on 10.8.2005 was travelling in Maruti van No. 41-0468 owned by him when van had turned turtle and respondent No. 1 had received injuries in the accident. He had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned award found that the respondent No. 1 had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20 per cent in reference to the whole body. The Tribunal found his monthly income as Rs. 3,000 and assessed his age as 22 years and applied the multiplier of 17. Thus, keeping in view the age, income and extent of permanent disability, the Tribunal calculated the loss of income due to the permanent disability as Rs. 1,22,400. The Tribunal awarded following sums under the different heads: (1) Actual medical expenses Rs.250 (2) Special dietRs.1,000 (3) TransportationRs.1,000 (4) Attendant chargesRs.1,000 (5) Loss of income during the treatment Rs.9,000 (6) Loss of future income due to the permanent disability Rs. 1,22,400 Total Rs. 1,34,650 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the vehicle, therefore, in terms of the policy condition, the liability of insurance company arises only in case of death or loss of limb, but not in a case of partial permanent disability. He further submitted that the amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in fixing the liability on the insurance company and in awarding the compensation amount. 5. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in respect of the liability are concerned, it is noticed that in the reply, which was filed by the insurance company before the Tribunal, no plea was raised that the liability of the insurance company was limited in respect of the claim of the owner. 5. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in respect of the liability are concerned, it is noticed that in the reply, which was filed by the insurance company before the Tribunal, no plea was raised that the liability of the insurance company was limited in respect of the claim of the owner. Dilip Bagre, NAW 2, who is the Administrative Officer of the appellant insurance company was examined before the Tribunal; he also did not say that the liability of the insurance company in respect of the claim of owner was limited because of any policy condition. The insurance policy has been placed on record as Exh. D3, which shows that to cover the risk of the owner, additional premium was paid and in the case of the owner the liability of the insurance company was restricted to Rs. 2,00,000. Since the amount awarded by Tribunal is less than Rs. 2,00,000, therefore, the liability has rightly been fixed on the insurance company. The arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that under section III of the policy condition, the liability of the insurance company does not arise, cannot be accepted since said section III of the policy condition was not filed and it was not proved before the Tribunal. 6. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000 per month. Though appellant had stated that he was earning Rs. 6,000 from the grocery business, but no evidence in this regard was filed. So far as extent of permanent disability is concerned, the evidence indicates that the respondent No. 1 had suffered fracture in the right hand and the doctor opined that he had suffered permanent disability in the right hand to the extent of 23 per cent. The Tribunal has assessed permanent disability in reference to the whole body as 20 per cent. The Tribunal has assessed permanent disability in reference to the whole body as 20 per cent. Even if the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are accepted that the extent of permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal in reference to the whole body is on the higher side, then also the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is not liable to be reduced since the Tribunal has awarded inadequate amount under the heads of actual medical expenses, special diet and transportation charges, attendant charges and loss of income during the treatment period. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded interest from the date of claim application on the awarded amount. 7. Thus, no case for limiting the liability of insurance company or reducing the compensation amount is made out. 8. Thus, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed. No costs.