Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Neeraj and Others

N.K. Mody, J.—This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 2278, 2279 and 2281 of 2012 which are the appeals filed by the insurance company and also M.A. Nos. 2247, 2250 and 2251 of 2012 which are the appeals filed by the claimants as in all the appeals the accident is one and also the award is one dated 31.8.2012 passed by the Tenth M.A.C.T., Indore in different-different claim cases. In all the appeals parties are one and the same except the claimants. Short facts of the case are that all the claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 21.11.2009 claimants were travelling in Tavera car bearing registration No. MP 09-V 9459 and were going towards Indore. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 accident occurred in which respondent No. 1 in all the appeals sustained injuries. It was prayed that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. Claim petitions were contested by the appellant on various grounds including on the ground that the respondent No. 3 was not possessing valid driving licence. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed so far as it relates to the appellant. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded the compensation holding appellant insurance company liable for payment of compensation against which all the appeals have been filed.

In the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, it is submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by respondent No. 1 the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced as all the respondent No. 1 sustained bony injuries and were hospitalised. It is submitted that permanent disability was caused to each of the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that appeal filed by respondent No. 1 be allowed and the adequate amount be enhanced.

Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that respondent No. 3 was not possessing valid driving licence. Appellant adduced the evidence to prove the fact that respondent No. 3 was not possessing valid driving licence. The learned counsel submits that since the endorsement in the register of Licensing Authority, Dhar, was torn off, therefore, the appellant could not produce the evidence in that regard. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 deliberately remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and at least right of recovery be given to the appellant. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded is already on the higher side, which requires no further enhancement. Learned counsel submits that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and appellant be exonerated and appeal filed by respondent No. 1 be dismissed.

The full particulars of all the appeals along with the amount awarded in each of the appeals is shown in the Table herein-below:

It appears that in all the claim cases amount awarded is on lower side which deserves to be enhanced. In M.A. No. 2250 of 2012, the amount awarded is Rs. 80,161, the break-up of which is as under:

Thus, there is a mistake in calculation. However, amount awarded is on lower side which is reassessed as under:

Thus, in M.A. No. 2250 of 2012, the appellant shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,161 instead of Rs. 80,161.

In M.A. No. 2251 of 2012, the amount awarded is Rs. 1,40,957 the break-up of which is as under:

Looking to the injuries sustained, it appears that amount awarded is on lower side which is enhanced as under:

Thus, in M.A. No. 2251 of 2012, appellant shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,90,957 instead of Rs. 1,40,957. The enhanced amount comes to Rs. 50,000.

In M.A. No. 2247 of 2012, wherein the claimant-appellant is Ujjwal and the amount awarded is Rs. 15,48,177, break-up of which is as under:

Since the accident is of the year 2009 and the appellant Ujjwal is resident of Indore, therefore, the income assessed at the rate of Rs. 4,000 p.m. appears to be on lower side which ought to have been Rs. 4,500 p.m. Since the appellant is aged 19 years and he is completely bedridden and the learned Tribunal has also assessed the permanent disability as 100 per cent and also the photographs of the appellant which are placed on record show that appellant is in need of full-time attendant, this court finds that on account of attendant expenses, the amount awarded as Rs. 50,000 is on lower side as the appellant is a young man, aged 19 years and shall require attendant for a long period as the life of appellant Ujjwal is miserable and is a worst case than a death case as is evident from the photographs produced before this court. Similarly, on account of hospital expenses also, the amount awarded is on lower side as the appellant was hospitalised for the following periods:

(1) 21.11.2009 to 3.3.2010

(2) 19.4.2010 to 31.4.2010

(3) 22.6.2010 to 26.6.2010

(4) 7.2.2013 to 19.2.2013

Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of transport expenses. Similarly, the amount awarded towards future medical expenses is also on lower side. No amount has been awarded to the appellant on account of loss of marriage prospects. In view of this court, the appellant is entitled for the following amount:

Thus, appellant Ujjwal in M.A. No. 2247 of 2012 will be entitled for a sum of Rs. 22,45,177 (sic Rs. 23,20,177) instead of Rs. 15,48,177. Thus, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 7,00,000. Amount awarded in each case will carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent from the date of filing of claim petition.

From a perusal of the record, it appears that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. This fact was brought to the notice of this court that in Claim Appeal No. 1211 of 2011, wherein appellant-claimant Asha, W/o. Jugal Kishore, this court while allowing the appeal held the appellant insurance company liable for payment of compensation. It appears that in that case vide award dated 11.3.2011 learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,34,000 which was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000 and no appeal was filed by the appellant insurance company, therefore, question of liability of appellant insurance company was not examined in that appeal. In appeals in the circumstances, while allowing the appeals filed by the claimants, right of recovery is given to the appellant from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. If this option is exercised then respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to demonstrate before the executing court that respondent No. 3 was possessing the valid licence on the date of accident. Four months time is granted for depositing the amount awarded and enhanced. With the aforesaid all the appeals stand disposed of with costs.

Copy of the order be placed in all the connected cases.