Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 234 (ALL)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadhna Singh

2016-01-18

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2016
JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. Heard Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent. 2. Aggrieved with the impugned award dated 28.9.2015 passed in M.A.C.P. No.311 of 2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.9, Fatehpur, present appeal has been filed. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that claimant respondent was coming from her-in-laws house alongwith his father on a motorcycle bearing registration No. U.P.71-E-1421 which was hit near Polytechnic School by the offending vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No.92-F-3500 resulting in serious injuries to claimant and to her father. The said accident caused 50% physical disability to the claimant. The claimant made a claim for Rs.17,00,000/- but the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,529 by the impugned award dated 28.9.2015. 4. The claimant-respondent challenged this award and prayed for enhancement by filing First Appeal From Order No.3118 of 2015 which was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.12.2015 in which a finding has been recorded as under: "In the absence of direct and cogent evidence, the tribunal was left with no option, therefore, the tribunal has rightly determined the notional income of the injured as Rs. 3,000/-. The methodology adopted by the tribunal in determining the amount of compensation is in accordance with the established principle of calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. No illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in calculating the amount of the compensation. As such, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be devoid of merit and can not be sustained. We do not find any justification to interfere with the award." 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disability of 50% is not of permanent nature inasmuch as the disability certificate recommended for reassessment after two years. He, therefore, submits that the sum awarded on the ground of 50% physical disability is excessive. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant respondent submits that merely recommending for reassessment after two years does not mean that the percentage of disability as determined by the medical board is erroneous or the claimant respondent does not suffer from the physical disability of 50%. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant respondent submits that merely recommending for reassessment after two years does not mean that the percentage of disability as determined by the medical board is erroneous or the claimant respondent does not suffer from the physical disability of 50%. He submits that in the order dated 17.12.2015 passed in first Appeal From Order No.3118 of 2015 as aforequoted, the Division Bench of this Court clearly held that the methodology adopted by the Tribunal in determining the amount of compensation to be in accordance with the established principle of calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. 7. I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. 8. A finding of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record has been recorded in the impugned award that the physical disability of the claimant respondent is 50%. The award was subjected to challenge by the claimant respondent by filing First Appeal From Order No. 3118 of 2015 which was dismissed by order dated 17.12.2015 after recording a finding that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award with regard to the disability of the claimant respondent is a finding of fact. It is undisputed that in the accident in question the claimant-respondent suffered injuries and incurred huge expenses in her treatment. It is also undisputed that the claimant respondent has suffered physical disability. The only point of contention of the appellant is that certificate issued by the Medical Board dated 13.1.2014 recommended reassessment after two years. This itself shows that the physical disability of 50% as certified by the Medical Board has been incurred by the claimant respondent. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant even after two years from the date of issuance of the Medical certificate in question that the claimant respondent has improved or she does not suffer from physical disability of 50%. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned award in so far as the claimant respondent is concerned. 10. The appeal is wholly misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed. 11. The statutory deposit made in this appeal shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for adjustment.