Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 651 (JK)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shairifa Begam

2010-12-30

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. Mst. Shairifa Begum, aged 30 years, suffered injuries when hit by a Bus bearing Registration No. JK02K-9879, driven rashly and negligently while travelling along side road at Shalimar-Hasti, Kishtwar on 21.03.2004. Initially treated at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Kishtwar, she was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu for further treatment of the injuries received in the motor vehicular accident. 2. She filed a Claim Petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kishtwar seeking compensation for the disablement caused to her because of the injuries received in the accident. 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer, contested the Claim, inter alia, saying that the Company was not liable to indemnify the owner for the petitioner's claim because he had violated the terms and conditions of the Policy by permitting the Bus to be driven by a driver, who did not hold a valid driving license. 4. To deal with the Claim Petition, the Tribunal put the parties to the issues which read thus:- 1. Whether the petitioner Sharifa Begum suffered injuries and permanent disablement due to a vehicular accident by Bus bearing registration No. 9879-JK02K on 21.3.2004 at near Shalimar Hasti Tehsil Kishtwar? OPP 2. In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident if so what is its effect? OPR-I. 4. Whether the owner and driver have violated the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy, if so how, and what is its effect? OPR-1. 5. Relief. 5. To sustain her Claim, the claimant, besides appearing as her own witness, examined Mohd. Amin, Parvez Ahmed and Shabir Ahmed, besides Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, as her witnesses. 6. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and to rebut the evidence led by the claimant in support of her Claim. 7. Accepting the claimant's evidence and finding her to have suffered 25% disablement because of the injuries received in the motor vehicular accident, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum as compensation to the claimant, for the disability suffered by her because of the injuries received in the accident. 8. 7. Accepting the claimant's evidence and finding her to have suffered 25% disablement because of the injuries received in the motor vehicular accident, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum as compensation to the claimant, for the disability suffered by her because of the injuries received in the accident. 8. The National Insurance Company Limited is in Appeal against the Award of the Tribunal. 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The appellant's learned counsel is right in contending that the Tribunal has not spelt out as to how had it determined Rs.1.70 lac as compensation to the claimant, for there is no discussion by the Tribunal, in this respect. His submission that the respondent's Claim Petition be remanded for disposal afresh to the Tribunal cannot, however, be accepted because it would be inappropriate to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after a period of more than six years of the accident when this Court can itself, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, determine the compensation payable to the claimant in terms of the provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, produced by the claimant, as her witness in support of the Claim, had stated that the respondent-claimant had suffered 25% permanent disability because of the fracture of Nasal bridge and upper left central incisor tooth besides deformity of left thumb with atrophy of the mussel of left hand and left forearm. His cross-examination, however, reveals that the extent of disability assessed by him could be 2 to 3% above or below 25%. 12. According to the claimant, she was having a Dairy Unit with 2 to 3 cows and would sell 20 to 25 Kilograms of Milk per day, besides doing other household work. This part of her evidence has not been questioned in the cross-examination. 13. There is no challenge to the specific case set up by her that the disability caused because of the injuries received in the accident had disabled her to continue her dairy business and other routine household work. 14. In these circumstances, even if the statement of the claimant is taken as exaggerated version of her earnings, Rs.4000/- can, however, be safely taken as her monthly income. 15. 14. In these circumstances, even if the statement of the claimant is taken as exaggerated version of her earnings, Rs.4000/- can, however, be safely taken as her monthly income. 15. Taking the multiplier prescribed for the age group of persons between 25 to 30 years under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, into consideration, and assessing the claimant to have suffered 20% disability, which the Doctor had assessed at 25% and adopting the multiplier method of assessing compensation, the claimant becomes entitled to the same amount of compensation as has been assessed by the Tribunal for its payment to the claimant. 16. There is, therefore, no scope for interference in the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 17. This Appeal lacks substance and is, therefore, dismissed. The amount, lying in deposit in the Appeal, shall be released in favour of the respondent-claimant.