AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jitendra Chauhan, J.—This judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned three appeals, as the same have been filed against the same award dated 17.2.2012, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Hisar, (in short ''the Tribunal'').
In FAO-2183-2012, learned counsel for the driver and owner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the owner and driver, however, it amply proved on record that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. Driving licence Ex. R2 was renewed upto 14.3.2011, whereas the accident took place on 11.7.2010.
In FAO-2901-2012, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that when the learned Tribunal has held that driving licence of the driver was valid upto 3.7.2000 and the present accident took place on 11.7.2010, it has wrongly been directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover from the driver and owner jointly and severally. He further submits that the compensation allowed by the learned Tribunal is also on the higher side.
In FAO-3480-2012, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the appellant suffered disability to the extent of 100% on account of amputation of both lower limbs. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,71,000/-, out of which Rs. 8,21,000/- is qua the medical treatment, whereas a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- is awarded towards other conventional heads, which is on the lower side. He prays for the enhancement of the compensation.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
From the perusal of the record, it emerges that the driving licence brought on record by the respondents was issued on 4.7.1997 and was valid upto 3.7.2000. There is no evidence on record to show that the driving licence was ever renewed. RW1 Balwan Singh, Licence Clerk, who brought the original record of the driving licence No. 27801/SDT/97, issued in the name of Naresh Kumar, did not tell about the renewal of the licence. Moreover, as per Ex. R-3, verification report from Licencing Officer, Tohana, DL No. 27801/SDT, issued in the name of Naresh Kumar s/o Ram Saroop, r/o W. No. 6 Tohana was for LTV only and valid from 4.7.1997 to 3.7.2000. The driver and owner did not produce any evidence to rebut the testimony of RW1 Balwan Singh and Ex. R3, verification report. The accident took place on 11.7.2010. From analysing the record, it is amply proved that the driving licence held by Naresh Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, was not valid and effective at the time of the accident. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly held the driver and owner liable jointly and severally, to pay the compensation.
No doubt, the driving licence held by the driver was not valid and effective at the time of the occurrence, but the vehicle was insured. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, , the Insurance Company has been rightly directed to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally.
It is not disputed that Krishan Kumar suffered multiple injuries on account of the accident. The claimant-injured remained admitted in various hospitals for a long period. He suffered disability to the extent of 100% on account of amputation of both the lower limbs. He was doing a business of transport. He is unable to do daily routine work. The injured was stated to be 35 years of age and having three daughters and one minor son. The amputation will make life of the injured miserable and cause mental as well as physical suffering to him. Keeping in view the nature of disability, age of the injured and the hospitalisation period, this Court feels that the lump sum amount awarded towards conventional heads is grossly inadequate and therefore, another lump sum enhancement of Rs. Two lacs would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the enhanced amount of Rs. Two lacs shall be paid to injured Krishan Kumar within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the he shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal, till its realisation.
In view of the above, FAO-2183 and 2901 of 2012 are dismissed, whereas FAO-3480-2012 is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent.
The amount deposited by the appellants in FAO-2183 and 2901 of 2012 be sent to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant according to law.