Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 749 (HP)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Sohan Singh

2012-10-29

SURINDER SINGH

body2012
Judgment SURINDER SINGH, J. 1. The above titled appeals are arising from a common award of MACT Mandi, passed on 24.2.2009 in claim Petition No. 69 of 2007, hence taken up together for decision to avoid conflicting judgments. 2. The admitted facts are that claimant Shri Sohan Singh was a passenger in private Bus No. HP32B-6315 owned by respondent No. 1 Goverdhan Singh which was insured with respondent No. 2 National Insurance Company. The bus went-off the road down 250 meters in a gorge causing multiple injuries to the claimant and other passengers and also some deaths. 3. The claimant was hospitalized for injuries. He had sustained fracture of arm, leg and hip. He remained under treatment in PGI, Chandigarh w.e.f. 13.2.2007 to 27.4.2007. An FIR No. 28 of 2007 dated 12.2.2007 was also registered against the driver who had also died in the said accident. Injured Sohan Singh filed claim petition for compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of `5,96,994/-along with interest @7.5% from the date of filing the petition till its realization. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount after adjustment of the interim compensation, if any paid/deposited. The claimant seeks enhancement of the compensation on the ground that he had to undergo hip replacement and he was undergoing follow-up treatment. Further that the claimant was a contractor, his loss to the income was not properly assessed by the learned Tribunal. 4. The Insurance Company disputed the amount of award being on a higher side and also on the ground that the alleged offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the route permit and terms and conditions of the policy. 5. As a matter of fact, the passengers who were injured and also the legal representatives of the deceased in the same accident had filed various claim petitions which were allowed by the learned Tribunal, which were challenged by the Insurance company in appeals on the same grounds. 5. As a matter of fact, the passengers who were injured and also the legal representatives of the deceased in the same accident had filed various claim petitions which were allowed by the learned Tribunal, which were challenged by the Insurance company in appeals on the same grounds. Vide judgments dated 17.4.2012 passed in FAO No. 187 of 2009 titled National Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Sunita Devi along with connected matters and FAO No. 295 of 2009 titled National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Indira Devi along with connected matters decided on 18.4.2009, this Court while relying upon the judgment of the apex Court rendered in Kamla Mangalal Vayani and others versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others (2010) 12 SCC 488 , held that the evidence of the Insurance Company was lacking that the vehicle in question was not being plied on the permitted route. Therefore, this point taken by the Insurance Company in this appeal stands already adjudicated upon and it cannot be reopened in absence of any proof that it was set aside by the superior Court. 6. In so far as the adequacy of the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal took note of the evidence led by the claimant with respect to his hospitalization and incurring of the expenditure. The claimant remained hospitalized only for 10 days during the year 2008. The disability certificate is Ext. PW4/A. There is no evidence of hip replacement and further follow-up treatment. No evidence was also led to the effect that this disability incurred to the claimant had effected his working capacity. The doctor specifically stated that the income of the claimant would not suffer in case of desk work. Though he stated that the claimant was having 60% disability of permanent nature, but the certificate aforesaid does not substantiate this fact. Further, no evidence has been led that income of the claimant has decreased considerably. The claimant was ‘C” Class contractor of I and PH. The learned Tribunal took note of the work done certificate Ext. PW6/A whereby claimant had obtained the contract w.e.f. the year 2001-2002 to 2006-2007 of the amount `41,54,134/- from the I and PH Department and to the tune of `9,11,871/-w.e.f. April, 2006 to 31.3.2007 as per Ext. The claimant was ‘C” Class contractor of I and PH. The learned Tribunal took note of the work done certificate Ext. PW6/A whereby claimant had obtained the contract w.e.f. the year 2001-2002 to 2006-2007 of the amount `41,54,134/- from the I and PH Department and to the tune of `9,11,871/-w.e.f. April, 2006 to 31.3.2007 as per Ext. PW5/A. Even during the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008, the claimant was awarded contract to the tune of `12,63,772/- as per details given in Ext. PW5/B proved by the Senior Assistant of the Public Works Department Division Karsog. Whereas the accident had taken place on 12.7.2007 which proves that the work and income of the claimant did not effect much. Further the learned Tribunal also took note of the agriculture and horticulture property of the claimant. The land is joint property of which his father is co-owner who is alive. There is no evidence on record with respect to the exact/approximate income of the claimant and the future loss from such property. 7. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances referred to above, the learned tribunal had awarded a sum of `2,50,000/-for the loss of future income which, in my opinion, is just and proper in view his age, the injury caused to him so long he remained immobilized and out of work, and effect on future income. It is also evident from the record that the claimant could only prove the medical expenditure to the tune of 1,96,994/- which was awarded by the learned Tribunal. Further, for pain and suffering an amount of `50,000/- was awarded in addition to the loss of amenities to the tune of 60,000/-. This amount, according to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is excessive, but keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and also the period of his hospitalization, in no way, it could be said to be excessive. 8. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, from the evidence on record, I do not find that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company as well as the claimant both are dismissed.