Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 546 (MP)

Reliance General Insurance v. Neeraj

2013-04-18

N.K.Mody

body2013
ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 2278/12, 2279/12, and 2281/12 which are the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and also M.A. Nos. 2247/12, 2250/12 and 2251/12 which are the appeals filed by the claimants as in all the appeals the accident is one and also the award is one dated 31.8.2012 passed by X MACT Indore in different-different claim cases. In all the appeals parties are one the same except the claimants. 2. Short facts of the case are that all the claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 21.11.2009 claimants were travelling in Tavera Car bearing registration No. MP09/V/9459 and were going towards Indore. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 accident occurred in which respondent No. 1 in all the appeals sustained injuries. It was prayed that claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. Claim petitions were contested by the appellant on various grounds including on the ground that respondent No. 3 was not possessing valid driving license. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed so far as it relates to the appellant. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded the compensation holding appellant/Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation against which all the appeals have been filed. 3. In the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, it is submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is sumitted that looking to the injuries sustained by respondent No. 1 the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced as all the respondent No. 1 sustained bony injuries and were hospitalized. It is submitted that permanent disability was caused to each of the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that appeal filed by respondent No. 1 be allowed and the adequate amount be enhanced. 4. Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No. 3 was not possessing valid driving license. Appellant adduced the evidence to prove the fact that respondent No. 3 was not possessing valid drivig license. Learned counsel submits that since the endorsement in the register of licensing Authority Dhar was torn of, thereforel, the appellant could not produce the evidence in the regard. It is submitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 deliberately remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that since the endorsement in the register of licensing Authority Dhar was torn of, thereforel, the appellant could not produce the evidence in the regard. It is submitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 deliberately remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and at least right of recovery be given to the appellant. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded is already on higher side, which requires no further enhancement. Learned counsel submits that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and appellant be exonerated and appeal filed by respondent No. 1 be dismissed. 5. Full particulars of all the appeals along with amount awarded in each of the appeal is shown in the chart herein below:- Appeal by Appeal by Claim Case Name/Injured Amount Claimants Insurance Co. No. Awarded 2247/12 2281/12 258/10 Ujjwal 15,48,177/- 2250/12 2279/12 51/09 Sachin 80,161/- 2251/12 2277/12 52/09 Neeraj 1,40,957/- 2278/12 420/10 Mayank 17,394/- 6. It appears that in all the claim cases amount awarded is on lower side which deserves to be enhanced. In M.A. No. 2250/12, wherein the amount awarded is Rs. 80,161/- of which break up is as under:- Towards medical expenses Rs. 38,161/- Towards special diet Rs. 3,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 3,000/- Towards loss of income Rs. 6,000/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 75,161/- Thus, there is a mistake of calculation. However, amount awarded is on lower side which is re-assessed as under:- Towards medical expenses Rs. 50,161/- Towards special diet Rs. 5,000/- Towards travelling expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Towards grievous injuries Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs. 1,10,161/- Thus, in M.A. No. 2250/12, appellant shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,161/- instead of Rs. 80,161/- 7. In M.A. No. 2251/12, in amount awarded is Rs, 1,40,957/- of which break up is as under :- Towards medical expenses Rs. 77,957/- Towards special diet Rs. 3,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 5,000/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 50,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 1,10,161/- instead of Rs. 80,161/- 7. In M.A. No. 2251/12, in amount awarded is Rs, 1,40,957/- of which break up is as under :- Towards medical expenses Rs. 77,957/- Towards special diet Rs. 3,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 5,000/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 50,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 1,40,957/- Looking to the injuries sustained it appears that amount awarded is on lower side which is enhanced as under :- Towards medical expenses Rs. 90,957/- Towards transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 75,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 1,90,957/- Thus, in M.A. No. 2251/12, appellant shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,90,957/- instead of Rs. 1,40,957/-. The enhanced amount comes to Rs. 50,000/- 8. In M.A. No. 2247/12, wherein the claimant/appellant is Ujjwal and the amount is Rs. 15,48,177/-. Break up of which is as under :- Towards hospitalization and medical instruments Rs. 5,24,177/- Towards special diet Rs. 10,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 50,000/- Towards future medical expenses Rs. 75,000/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 8,64,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- 9. Since the accident is of the year 2009 and the appellant Ujjwal is resident of Indore, therefore, the income assessed @ Rs. 4,000/- p.m. appears to be on lower side which ought to have been 4,500/- p.m. Since the appellant is aged 19 years and the appellant is completely bed ridden and the learned Tribunal has also assessed the permanent disability as 100% and also the photographs of the appellant which are placed on record shows that appellant is in need of full time attender, this Court finds that on account of attender expenses, the amount awarded as Rs. 50,000/- is on lower side as the appellant is a young man, aged 19 years and shall require the attender for a long period as the file of appellant Ujjwal is miserable and is a worse case than a death case as is evident from the photographs produced before this Court. Similarly, on account of hospital expenses also, the amount awarded is on lower side as the appellant was hospitalized for the following period. 1. 21.11.2009 to 3.3.2010 2. 19.4.2010 to 31.4.2010 3. 22.6.2010 to 26.6.2010 4. Similarly, on account of hospital expenses also, the amount awarded is on lower side as the appellant was hospitalized for the following period. 1. 21.11.2009 to 3.3.2010 2. 19.4.2010 to 31.4.2010 3. 22.6.2010 to 26.6.2010 4. 7.2.2013 to 19.2.2013 Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of transport expenses. Similarly, the amount awarded towards future medical expenses is also on lower side. No amount has been awarded to the appellant on account of loss of marriage prospects. In view of this Court, the appellant is entitled for the following amount :- Towards permanent disability Rs. 9,72,000/- Towards hospital expenses and instruments Rs. 6,48,177/- Towards loss of marital prospects Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards transport expenses Rs. 25,000/- Towards special diet Rs. 25,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attender Rs. 2,50,000/- Towards future medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards loss of income during the period when the appellant was hospitalized Rs. 50,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Rs. 22,45,177/- Thus, appellant Ujjwal in M.A. No. 2247/12 will be entitled for a sum of Rs. 22,47,177/- instead of Rs. 15,48,177/-. Thus, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 7,00,000/-. Amount awarded in each case will carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim petition. 10. From perusal of the record, it appears that respondents No. 2 and 3 remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. This fact was brought to the notice of this Court that in claim appeal No. 1211/11, wherein appellant/claimant Smt. Asha w/o Jugal Kishore, this Court while allowing the appeal held the appellant/Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation. It appears that in that case vide award dated 11.3.2011 learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,34,000/- which was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- and no appeal was filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, question of liability of appellant/Insurance Company was not examined in that appeal. In appeals. in the circumstances, while alowing the appeals filed by the claimants, right of recovery is given to the appellant from respondents No. 2 and 3. If this option is exercised then respondents No. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to demonstrate before the executing Court that respondent No. 3 was possessing the vaild license on the date of accident. Four months time is granted for depositing the amount awarded and enhanced. With the aforesaid all the appeals stand disposed of with costs. 11. If this option is exercised then respondents No. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to demonstrate before the executing Court that respondent No. 3 was possessing the vaild license on the date of accident. Four months time is granted for depositing the amount awarded and enhanced. With the aforesaid all the appeals stand disposed of with costs. 11. Copy of the order be placed in all the connected. Pradeep Gupta for appellant; Romil Malpani for respondent No. 1.