Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2447 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harmit Singh

2011-11-15

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by appellant Insurance Company assailing award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.920/1999, by which learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,78,000/- to claimant-respondent for permanent disability of 50%. The said permanent disability was sustained by him in a road accident involving a vehicle insured by appellant insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that the vehicle that was insured was a jeep, a private vehicle. The claimant was travelling in a jeep and that he sustained injuries because of his own negligence. The evidence shows that the driver of the jeep was driving the same at a very high speed. Besides, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that income of the claimant cannot be accepted at Rs.5500/- per month at the time the accident took place. The claimant contended that he was serving as Area Manager with a private concern, namely, M/s Bani Mutual Benefit Limited Company. Apart from that he was working as insurance agent and running an electric shop. But none of these facts are proved. The claimant has neither produced permanent account number of income tax nor the income tax return. Though he has contended that he used to file return. In this connection an adverse inference should be drawn against him. It was argued that award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering is towards a bit higher side. It should be suitably reduced. The compensation of RS.50,000/- awarded cumulatively for transportation, nutritious food, medical expenses etc. should also be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for respondent has cited judgments of the Supreme Court in Muthaiah Sekhar vs. Nesamony Tpt. Corporation Limited and Another – (1998) 7 SCC 39 and Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, decided on 01.11.2011 in Civil Appeal No.9014/2011, and argued that award of compensation of Rs.5,28,000/- cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable keeping in view 50% permanent disability sustained by the claimant. He would face all these difficulties throughout his life. Due to the accident, there was shortening in his right leg by 1½ inch. It was argued that AW-3 Naveen, an employee of the said M/s. Bani Mutual Benefit Limited Company, has contended that appellant was working as Regional Manager in aforesaid concern. The salary certificate (Exhibit-264) proves his monthly salary to be Rs.5500/-. Due to the accident, there was shortening in his right leg by 1½ inch. It was argued that AW-3 Naveen, an employee of the said M/s. Bani Mutual Benefit Limited Company, has contended that appellant was working as Regional Manager in aforesaid concern. The salary certificate (Exhibit-264) proves his monthly salary to be Rs.5500/-. His services were terminated because of his disablement vide Exhibit-263. This witness has proved that Vikas Singh, Assistant Manager (Personnel) has signed the appointment order and termination order of the claimant. The learned Tribunal was therefore perfectly justified in accepting the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5500/- from that employment, though it has ignored that additional the claimant has income from the insurance agency and electric shop. The award of Rs.1,00,000/- on the head of pains and sufferings and future inconvenience is just and reasonable keeping in view the fact that claimant would suffer the inconvenience because of this injury throughout his life and face difficulty in day to day activities. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- cumulatively awarded for nutitious food, medical expenses and transportation etc., is also just and proper. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that learned Tribunal has considered evidence of the claimant and accepted that he was in employment of M/s Bani Mutual Benefit Limited Company and that his services were terminated after he sustained disability of 50%. The appointment order indicated his monthly salary to be Rs.5500/-. The appointment order is Exhibit-264 and termination order is Exhibit-263, which have been produced by the claimant. AW-3 Naveen, a co-worker of the claimant, who himself was employee of said private company and whose appointment order was made vide Exhibit 271, has appeared in the witness box and proved that claimant was employee of the said firm and he also proved the certificate. The learned Tribunal has not accepted the income of the claimant from insurance agency and from electric shop. The Tribunal therefore accepted the income of the claimant that he was getting from permanent employment as Area Manager from M/s. Bani Mutual Benefit Limited Company. While computing the compensation, learned Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the claimant to be 32 years at the relevant time, has rightly applied the multiplier of 16. The Tribunal therefore accepted the income of the claimant that he was getting from permanent employment as Area Manager from M/s. Bani Mutual Benefit Limited Company. While computing the compensation, learned Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the claimant to be 32 years at the relevant time, has rightly applied the multiplier of 16. In my view the amount of compensation of Rs.5,28,000/- awarded by learned Tribunal for loss of future income, cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable or otherwise unjust. The compensation for pains and sufferings and for difficulty which the claimant would face throughout his life, also cannot be said to be excessive or otherwise unreasonable. A sum of Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses, transportation, nutritious diet also is just and reasonable particularly when the appellant produced bills for Rs.46,084.73 for actual treatment taken. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award which calls for any interference therein in this appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.