New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Pankaj Sharma and Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—SBCMA No. 2016 of 2010 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 24.6.2010 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City Jaipur, in MACT cases No. 610/08 whereby claim petition of the claimant was allowed and he has been granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,95,000/- The claimant in SBCMA No. 2016 of 2010 filed cross objections for enhancing the amount of compensation awarded to him. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2007 at about 9.45 p.m. when the complainant was going by his motor cycle No. se (sic) at Jagatpura, then near JLN Marg crossing Girdhar Marg, an Indica Car bearing No. RJ 14 5 C 5467 dashed him consequently he sustained injuries. His right leg was amputated from right knee and also sustained fracture of right fingers. In respect of the accident an FIR No. 1058/07 was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur wherein the police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondent No. 2 driver of the car.

The respondent driver and owner filed the reply stating, inter alia that the car No. RJ 14 5 C 5467 was not involved in accident but the accident was happened by car No. RJ 14 CE 3569 but was not impleaded as party in claim petition. The claimant was driving the motor cycle under state of intoxication and dashed the car while driving rashly and negligently and then collided with another vehicle RJ 14 CE 3569. The appellant filed the reply stating that the insured vehicle has been falsely involved in the accident in connivance with the respondent driver and owner which was clear from the fact that the FIR was lodged after a delay of two days and the injury report was prepared on 9.1.2008 i.e. after a delay of 18 days. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the MACT framed 4 issues. After examining the witnesses and exhibiting the documents, the MACT on hearing the parties passed the impugned award and awarded compensation as mentioned above.

The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the MACT has awarded the compensation Rs. 5,95,000/- to the claimant which cannot be said to be the just and reasonable compensation but excessive in the facts and circumstances. The MACT awarded Rs. 1,05,000/- against the pain and suffering, mental agony, permanent disability and the troubles which cannot be said to be in accordance with law, as the MACT has already awarded the compensation Rs. 4,24,320/- on account of permanent disability. It was argued that Rs. 1,05,000/- cannot be said to be just and reasonable as was given on account of the permanent disability and its consequences. The MACT has awarded Rs. 25,102 against the treatment expenses, rich diet and transportation which cannot be said to be just and reasonable as the MACT has already awarded the treatment expenses and medical bills Rs. 40,578/-.

The learned counsel for the claimant in support of the cross objections has argued that in view of the material on record the award is liable to be modified to the extent as claimed by the claimant in his claim petition with 12 per cent interest per annum. The claimant was earning more than Rs. 6,000/- per month but the MACT has assessed his income Rs. 2,600/- per month only hence the claimant is entitled to get compensation by considering his income to be Rs. 6,000/- per month. It was argued by the learned counsel that he was employed in Shivajee Handloom Cooperative Societies and getting Rs. 4,000/- per month. Besides this he was also running STD PCO and getting Rs. 2,000/- from it. The claimant in support of his claim that he is getting Rs. 4,000/- per month by way of salary from Shivajee Handloom Cooperative Societies exhibited certificate Ex. 15 and also produced evidence of AW 2 Kajormal Jangid in support of it.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the award passed by the MACT dated 24.6.2010. I have gone through the findings of the MACT on issues 1,2,3 and 4 and the same cannot be said to be perverse. On issue No. 1 the MACT observed as under:

Thus it is clear that the MACT has found only the rash and negligence of the car driver (non-claimant No. 1) and rash and negligence of the claimant is not proved.

The insurance company has seriously opposed the award of compensation to the claimant. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the MACT on issue No. 4 awarding compensation to the claimant. The claimant has also filed cross objection stating that he has not been awarded compensation properly. The MACT disbelieved the evidence produced by the claimant in relation to the income proof etc. The MACT in para No. 20 relating to issue No. 4 observed as under:

On the basis of the evidence produced by the claimant showing his disability to the extent of 80% the MACT determined his monthly income to be Rs. 2080/- and yearly Rs. 24,960/- and as per Schedule II attached with the MV Act, the multiplier of 17 was applied. In this manner the MACT computed the income of the claimant to be Rs. 4,24,320/-. Besides this as per the injury report Ex. 11, X-ray report 12 and disability certificate Ex. 13 and for the grievous injuries received by the claimant and for the mental agony etc. the MACT on account of difficulties faced by the claimant awarded Rs. 1,05,000/- to the claimant. As per Ex. P.19 of Santokba Duralabhji Hospital Rs. 12,669/- and Ex. 20 to 94 total Rs. 40,578/- incurred by the claimant. The claimant remained admitted in the Hospital two times and in this manner for the expenses, nutritional food and for transportation total Rs. 65,680/- was awarded. In this manner the claimant was awarded Rs. 4,24,320/- + 1,05,000 + 65,680 = Rs. 5,95,000/-. The MACT also allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 16.1.2008. It was also ordered that if the amount is not paid within a period of thirty days the claimant will be entitled to 9 per cent interest per annum. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the MACT. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper. The compensation was rightly determined. The claimant is not entitled for any further compensation. The appeal filed by the insurance company being devoid of merit stands dismissed and the cross objections filed by the claimant also stands dismissed. The stay granted by this Court on 13.8.2010 stands vacated. The stay application also stands disposed of. The MACT is directed to disburse the amount if already not disbursed to the claimant as per the terms of the award.