AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Srinagar.
This is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 05.07.2009, when Muzaffar Ahmad Shiekh, a student, 14 year old was walking
near Duck Parl Fore Shore road, Srinagar and was hit by the offending vehicle (Scorpio) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The
offending vehicle is owned by respondent no. 2. In the accident claimant suffered fracture to his right leg and was admitted to SKIMS, Soura,
w.e.f. 5th July 2009 to 20th July 20th July 2009. Thereafter, record reveals that the injured was again admitted to SKIMS Soura w.e.f., 21st
August 2009 to 24th August 2009 and the injured has also undergone surgical procedure. On this the claim petition was filed before the MACT,
Srinagar which was adjudicated upon and the Tribunal in lump-sum awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of different heads and also
Rs. 40,000/- has been granted for pain and sufferings with 6% interest.
The Appellant-Insurance Company challenges the award, stating that the Tribunal without giving the clear details of the heads granted the
compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- for pecuniary damages and Rs. 40,000/- for non-pecuniary damages. It is pleaded that in respect of liability, there
is admission of behalf of owner himself that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license.
On the first issue the Tribunal after going through the records has stated that compensation for pecuniary damages should be based on
conservative estimate in the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Such a determination is bad. The Tribunal should have specified each head of quantum of
compensation after proper verification of records because pecuniary damages are based on valid records and pleadings. The Presiding Officer left
the job of interpreting the heads to this Court. Such conduct is deprecated. The Tribunal should be clear with respect to the various heads of
compensation.
In so for as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the amount granted on account of pain and sufferings, there is no dispute and, therefore,
this Court is not inclined to interfere this amount. The claimants can withdraw the amount. However, in so for as the pecuniary damages are
concerned there should be a clear statement as to the various heads on which the compensation is payable. The compensation determined at Rs.
1,20,000/- shall not be reduced. If some heads are omitted then compensation on those heads can be granted.
On the plea that the owner has himself made an admission that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license, the appellant-
insurance company is entitled to put forth their argument of no liability and that the question of pay and recovery does not arise. This is also needs
to be properly addressed by the Tribunal.
In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Tribunal to specify the various heads of pecuniary damages on which
the compensation has to be awarded and grant further compensation in any other heads, if justified. The Tribunal to decide the issue within a
period of one month. The learned counsel for either side can address the Tribunal, based on the evidence already recorded. There is no need for a
fresh trial.
The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 40,000/- granted under the head of pain and sufferings.
Record of the Tribunal along with copy of order be send down forthwith.