Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1710 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pawar Tanwar

2012-08-07

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the award dated 28-1-2009 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the MACT') in claim case No. 299/2008 whereby the Claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 has been allowed and an award for Rs. 18,97,500/- along-with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been passed in favour of the claimant respondent No. 1 and against appellant and non-claimants respondents jointly and severally. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11-1-2008 at about 11:00 p.m. the respondent No. 2 was driving the truck trailor bearing HR-55C-3221 rashly and negligently which hit the respondent claimant No.1 when he was driving the motor-cycle bearing RJ-01/14M 7856, as a result of which the claimant respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries. He got fractured in his left leg and his leg was amputed above the knee joint. 3. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged Claimant respondent No. 1 filed claim petition before the MACT stating therein that at the time of alleged incident he was 25 years of age and he used to earn Rs. 14,324/- per month. 4. Notices were issued. The Insurance Company filed written statement. The MACT on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues : (Vernacular matter omitted..........Ed.) 5. Thereafter, the evidence was led by both the parties and the same was recorded by the MACT. The MACT after hearing both the parties allowed the claim petition filed by respondent claimant No. 1 vide judgment and award dated 28-1-2009 and an award for Rs. 18,97,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been passed in favour of the claimant respondent No. 1 and against appellant and non-claimants respondents jointly and severally. 6. Dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 28-1-2009 the appellant Insurance Company has preferred instant misc. appeal before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company submits that impugned judgment/award dated 28-1-2009 passed by the MACT is absolutely illegal, perverse to the facts and material on record and without jurisdiction. The MACT while deciding issue No. 3 has awarded very exorbitant amount as compensation looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as such same deserves to be reduced. Neither the respondent claimant No. 1 has produced any certificate regarding his income nor the prescriptions of the doctor. The MACT while deciding issue No. 3 has awarded very exorbitant amount as compensation looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as such same deserves to be reduced. Neither the respondent claimant No. 1 has produced any certificate regarding his income nor the prescriptions of the doctor. In suppport of his case he has placed reliance upon the following judgments: 1. Asha & Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 1 (2004 ACC 533 (SC) ; and 2. Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., MACD 2011 (SC) 33 . 8. Thus, the impugned judgment/award dated 28-1-2009 passed by the MACT be quashed and set aside and the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 be dismissed with cost. 9. E-contra Mr. Kapil Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent claimant No. 1 has opposed the afore-mentioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company and submits that the impugned judgment/ award passed by the MACT is just and proper and needs no interference of this Court. From the documents available on record it is clear that at the time of alleged accident the claimant respondent No. 1 was an employee of Fultron India Credit Company Limited and earning Rs. 14,324/- per month despite that the MACT has only assessed the monthly income of respondent claimant No. 1 as Rs. 9,940/- per month. He submits that from Ex.P15 it is clear that due to this accident the claimant respondent No. 1 became 80% permanent disabled and his left leg above the knee was amputed. At the time of accident the claimant respondent No. 1 was 25 years of age. He further submits that the MACT in para Nos. 24 to 26 have elaborately dealt with on each and every aspect of the matter, which are quoted hereunder : (Vernacular matter omitted..........Ed.) 10. Learned counsel for the respondent claimant No. 1 has drawn attention of the Court to the certificate dated 19-11-2011 issued by the Endolite India Limited regarding quotation for 'Endolite Trans Femoral System With Smart IP Knee Joint'. He further submits that the claimant respondent be given liberty to move an application before the MACT for release of the amount in his favour regarding operation of his leg. 11. He further submits that the claimant respondent be given liberty to move an application before the MACT for release of the amount in his favour regarding operation of his leg. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material including the record of the case made available to me. 12. It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of tractor trailor by respondent No. 1 which was insured by the appellant insurance company. In the aforesaid accident the respondent I claimant No. 1 became 80% permanent disabled and his left leg was amputated. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of accident the claimant respondent No. 1 was 25 years of age and was unmarried. He produced all the documents before the MACT which includes the medical bills, prescription regarding his admission in hospital for 45 days etc. The claimant respondent No. 1 also submitted the document which show that previously he was an employee of I.C.I.C.I. The claimant respondent No. 1 produced certain documents i.e. Ex.23 to Ex.27 which show his income. Thus, in my considered view the judgment/award passed by the MACT needs no interference of this Court. 13. In the result this civil misc. appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is devoid of merits and stands dismissed after confirming the judgment/award dated 28-1-2009 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in claim case No. 299/2008. However, the respondent claimant No. 1 shall be at liberty to move an application before the MACT for disbursement of the amount and the MACT shall decide the application of disbursement on the basis of the need of the claimant respondent No. 1.Appeal dismissed. *******