United India Ins. Co. Ltd vs Mahendra Singh And Ors

Appellant-Insurer has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') challenging judgment and award dated 27.07.2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short, 'learned Tribunal').

Learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, while adjudicating the claim of respondent-claimant under Section 166 of the Act, quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,76,600/- for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident involving insured vehicle Truck No.RJ-46-GA-1215.

The facts, in brief, are that respondent-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, inter-alia, on the ground that while he was travelling on motorcycle as pillion rider, the insured vehicle collided with it and as a result of which he sustained grave and serious injuries. In the accident other incumbent Shambhu Singh also died. For quantifying compensation to the tune of Rs.20,95,000/-, it is pleaded by respondent-claimant that he was 12 years of age at the time of incident and was prosecuting his studies besides notionally earning Rs.30,000/- per annum. In order to show gravity of the injuries suffered, a certificate was produced showing 40% permanent disability. The claim amount was quantified under different heads including the medical expenses incurred by him.

The claim petition is contested by driver and owner of the vehicle as well as Insurer. The Insurer, in its reply, raised a specific objection that driver of the Truck was having no valid driving licence and further no permit for plying the vehicle on highways was held by the insured.

Learned Tribunal settled three issues for determination and parties led their evidence. While examining Issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving, upon appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal decided the same in favour of respondent-claimant and against insurer and other non-claimants. Adverting to Issue No.2, which was settled on the basis of objections raised by Insurer, learned Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the insured was not holding valid permit for plying vehicle on highways and, accordingly, while deciding the issue, learned Tribunal directed the Insurer to first pay compensation and then recover the same from driver and owner of the vehicle. The crucial issue, i.e., Issue No.3, concerning quantum of compensation, was examined by learned Tribunal objectively and relying on the disability certificate, learned Tribunal finally assessed permanent disability up to 25%. With this finding and considering the medical expenses incurred by respondent-claimant, total amount was quantified, as aforesaid.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award.

Upon perusal of impugned judgment and award, in my opinion, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding Issue Nos. 1 & 2. The decision of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.2 is also supported by a decision of Supreme Court in case of Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. : 2018 ACJ 2430. As regards compensation amount determined and awarded by learned Tribunal, suffice it to observe that in view of certificate of permanent disability produced showing 40% disability, the learned Tribunal has moderately assessed the same at 25% and, accordingly, awarded compensation. In view thereof, the amount of compensation determined by learned Tribunal cannot be categorized as excessive or exorbitant. Moreover, learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.2, has categorically held that the Insurer shall first pay the amount of compensation and then shall be at liberty to recover the same from the Insured.

In view thereof, no case for interference with the impugned judgment and award is made out. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.