Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 198 (JK)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shoba Kumari

2017-04-17

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Condl (C) No. 56/2016:1. 1. In view of the reasons assigned, a good ground is made out for condoning the delay of 76 days in preferring the appeal. Moreover, no serious objection has been raised by the respondents’ counsel. Hence, delay is, accordingly, condoned and appeal is taken on board. 2. Condonation application disposed of. Condl (C) No. 56/2016:1. 3. In view of the reasons assigned, a good ground is made out for condoning the delay of 74 days in preferring the appeal. Moreover, no serious objection has been raised by the respondents’ counsel. Hence, delay is, accordingly, condoned and appeal is taken on board. 4. Condonation application disposed of. CIMA Nos. 86/2017 & 87/2017: 5. These two appeals arise out of the same accident involving the same offending vehicle, therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 6. The appeals are of the year 2016. 7. It is a case of Injury. 8. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed both the appeals challenging the award dated 28.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. 9. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appeared for respondent No. 2 in this case but today he is not present. 10. Accident in this case has happened on 03.04.2012. One Shoba Kumari aged 27 years, a house wife, having a boutique etc., and Gopal Chand, aged 39 years, a Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher suffered various injuries in a vehicular accident caused by the offending Motorcycle driven rashly and negligently by its driver at Gujjar Pulli Seora when the motor cycle of the claimant- Gopal Chand bearing registration No. JK02T/0802 was hit by the offending Motorcycle. The claimants filed claim petitions seeking compensation. 11. The Tribunal, on the basis evidence, granted the following compensation in both the cases along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization except the future income:- Claimant-Gopal Chand: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,58,760/- 2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- 4. Expenses on medicine Rs. 85,730/- 5. Future medical expenses Rs. 40,000/- 6. Fare of vehicle and expenses of two attendants Rs. 30,000/- 7. Special diet and nutrition Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 3,84,490/- Claimant Shoba Kumari: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,65,240/- 2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- 4. Expenses on medicine Rs. 1,61,110/- 5. 85,730/- 5. Future medical expenses Rs. 40,000/- 6. Fare of vehicle and expenses of two attendants Rs. 30,000/- 7. Special diet and nutrition Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 3,84,490/- Claimant Shoba Kumari: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,65,240/- 2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- 4. Expenses on medicine Rs. 1,61,110/- 5. Future medical expenses Rs. 40,000/- 6. Fare of vehicle and expenses of two attendants Rs. 30,000/- 7. Special diet and nutrition Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 4,66,350/- 12. The appellant-Insurance Company does not dispute the quantum of compensation, as also the interest granted. 13. The main plea taken in these appeals is that the driver of the offending Motorcycle was holding a fake licence, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 14. To prove that the driver of the offending Motorcycle was having fake licence, no document was relied upon before the Tribunal, even though such a plea was taken that it is a case of fake licence. In this case no licence was produced and the owner and driver were not set ex-parte before the Tribunal. On the basis of the documents which is said to be fake the Insurance Company should have moved an application to prove said plea. 15. The claimants need not suffer on the plea of the Insurance Company. Therefore, while confirming the quantum of compensation as well as the interest which is not seriously disputed, the claimants will be entitled to seek release of the awarded amount deposited by the Appellant-Insurance Company without any demur. 16. However, on the question as to whether it is the case of liability of the Insurance Company or the owner, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for de novo adjudication only on liability. The Tribunal will examine the issue as to validity of the driving licence. Parties are at liberty to adduce the evidence before the Tribunal on this issue only. 17. The owner of the offending vehicle is at liberty to rebut the claim made by the Insurance Company on the issue of liability. 18. The appeals are partly allowed by way of remand in respect of liability alone.