Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Amma Nikhil

Aggrieved by the award in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2011, the second respondent therein i.e., Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager has filed this appeal and challenged the award passed in favour of the respondents/claimants.

The appellant has pleaded that the trial Court committed a grave error in awarding Rs.4,49,670/- with interest. The insurance company has pleaded that the above said O.P. was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, but the trial Court awarded Rs.75,000/- for injury No.1, Rs.20,000/- for the second injury and awarded Rs.25,000/- towards shock, pain and suffering. The amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court is against the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, by which fixed amounts can be allowed in case of an application under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, thereby, sought for setting aside the award.

M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2011 was filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the injuries caused to the respondent/claimant in a road accident. It was the case of respondent/claimant that on 25.10.2010, at about 11.00 a.m., while he was travelling in a car bearing No.AP-25-V-1414 from Nizamabad to Armoor and when he reached outskirts, the driver of the car drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, he could not control the car and dashed trees which were by the side of the road, thereby, the car was completely damaged, he suffered severe injuries, thereby, he prayed for Rs.4,00,000/-. The first respondent/car owner filed a written statement denying the material allegations of the petition and further claimed that since the car was already insured with respondent No.2, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Whereas, the insurance company which is shown as respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement denying the material averments of the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

The claimant was examined as PW.1 and one Dr. Akhil Dadi is examined as PW.2, Exs.A1 and A2 are marked by the claimant and on behalf of the insurance company, copy of the policy obtained in respect of said car was marked as Ex.B1. The Court below accepted the claim of petitioner/claimant, awarded an amount of Rs.4,49,670/-.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the present petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, fixed amounts as mentioned in Second Schedule of the Act, can be awarded in case the Court accepted the claim of petition but in this case, excess amounts awarded more than Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries, thereby, he prayed for setting aside the award.

Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the amounts awarded by the trial Court was excess and against the Provision of 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, if so, whether the amount is liable to be reduced ?

For convenience sake, I will extract what Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act provides :

163-A sub provisions as to payment of compensation of structured formula basis : -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub‐section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub‐section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. ]

Therefore, according to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, even in the absence of any rash and negligent act by an opposite vehicle, the injured can claim compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle provided, he is able to prove the use of a motor vehicle in causing injuries. However, the award of such compensation is subject to the mandate under the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, in case of claim under the above referred Section specific fixed amounts have been provided for awarding the compensation. According to clause 4 of the Second Schedule, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- for a grievous injury, Rs.1,000/- for non-grievous injury, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses.

There is no dispute about the filing of the present petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. According to the award passed by the Court below, it is very clear that the learned trial Court Judge awarded Rs.75,000/- to the first injury, Rs.20,000/- to the second injury, apart from granting Rs.25,000/-towards compensation for shock, pain and sufferance, Rs.30,000/-under the head of loss of past earnings, he has awarded Rs.2,79,679/- as compensation towards medical expenses. In view of the above referred Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and Second Schedule of the Act, the above amounts are highly excessive and needs to be reduced.

Since the respondent/claimant suffered two grievous injuries, he is entitled to Rs.5,000/- each for the injuries, he can be awarded Rs.30,000/- for the loss of earnings but he cannot claim more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. According to the fixed amount mentioned in the Second Schedule, he is entitled only to a sum of Rs.15,000/-. When the learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments, there was no representation for the respondent/claimant. Therefore, in the light of what was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant and in view of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the amounts awarded by the Court below needs reconsideration and the appeal can be allowed.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and award passed by the Court below is set aside. The respondent/claimant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- each for the two injuries, he is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earning and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenditure. It is brought to my notice that while filing appeal, the appellant herein sought for stay of the award passed by the Court below and filed I.A.No.2 of 2018. Stay was granted on condition of appellant depositing Rs.50,000/-. The said order was passed about more than four (4) years ago and I believe that the respondent/claimant must have withdrawn the amount if so, deposited as per the order of this Court. Even though, I came to the conclusion that the respondent is not entitled to more than Rs.55,000/-. In view of the above referred circumstances, it may not be possible for the insurance company to recover the excess amount. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the respondent/claimant to retain the amount, if it is already withdrawn, with the said finding, the award is modified as indicated above.

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.