The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Aniruddha

S.B. Shukre, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -2, Nagpur. Respondent No.1 is original claimant, respondents No. 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the owner of offending vehicle and the appellant is insurer of the offending vehicle. According to respondent No.1, while he was proceeding as pillion rider on Bajaj make motorcycle on 03/8/2007, he met with an accident. He submitted that the motorcycle was being driven by its rider, one Parshuram in a rash and negligent manner due to which it dashed against an electric pole. Both the rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. The rider of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries, whereas the pillion rider, i.e. respondent No.1 was fortunate to recover from the injuries. This respondent No.1 felt that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and, therefore, he filed claim petition claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending motorcycle. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both the rival parties, learned Member of the Tribunal partly allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs. 1,94,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum to respondent No.1 and it was directed to be paid jointly and severally by the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3.

The appellant felt aggrieved by the said judgment and award and, therefore, the appellant is before this Court in the present first appeal.

I have heard Shri A. R. Godbole, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri A. M. Patankar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri P. S. Chawhan, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

Admit.

The only point which arises for my consideration is: whether the Tribunal has committed an error of calculation in fixing the compensation to be at Rs. 1,94,000/-?

Shri Godbole, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that compensation has been granted to respondent No.1 only for certain heads such as; actual medical expenses, mental agony, pain, conveyance, hospital attendant and special diet, and so far as the medical expenses actually incurred by respondent No.1 were concerned, the Tribunal miscalculated the figure and wrongly held that the medical expenses were of Rs. 1,73,000/-. He submits that this figure needs to be corrected by considering the evidence available on record.

At this stage, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has rendered appreciable assistance to this Court by filing on record a pursis indicating the details of the medical expenses and also the amounts due to respondent No.1 on account of difference in salary, pain and mental agony, conveyance and special diet. This pursis is taken on record and it is marked for identification purposes as document ''X''.

Upon perusal of the statement of expenses annexed to the pursis, it can be seen that the total amount claimed by respondent No.1 for such heads as medical expenses actually incurred by him, difference in salary, compensation on account of pain, mental agony and for conveyance and special diet is of Rs. 1,16,764/-. Respondent No.1 has also calculated interest on this amount @7.5% per annum, which is a rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition i.e. 02/11/2007 to 01/11/2013, with the latter date being a date falling about two days after the compensation amount is deposited by the appellant. The interest for this period has been mentioned to be of Rs. 52,538/-. Thus, total amount of compensation due to respondent No.1, as per the statement furnished to this Court by him comes to Rs. 1,69,302/-. Since this amount has been admitted by respondent No.1 to be correct amount representing not only the medical expenses actually incurred but also the compensation due to him on other heads and is also acceptable to the appellant, it will have to be accepted as the correct figure of the compensation which should have been determined by the Tribunal.

In view of the above, I find that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the amount of compensation payable to respondent No.1 and this amount should have been Rs. 1,69,302/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 1,70,000/- only. The above point is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and this appeal deserves to be allowed.

Before parting with the judgment, I must place on record Court''s appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned Counsel for the appellant as well learned Counsel for the respondents for arriving at the correct figure of the compensation payable to respondent No.1 and expediting the final disposal of this appeal.

I. The appeal is allowed.

II. The impugned judgment and award are modified and it is directed that now the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 shall, jointly and severally, pay an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- (rupees one lac seventy thousand only) to respondent No.1 instead of Rs. 1,94,000/-.

III. Respondent No. 1 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-, which shall be towards full satisfaction of this award from the amount deposited by the appellant in this Court and the appellant is permitted to withdraw rest of the amount.

IV. In the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.