United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Jai Singh and Others

G.P. Mittal, J.

CM APPL. No.688/2012 in MAC. APP. 47/2012

By virtue of this application, the Appellant United India Insurance Co. Limited seeks permission to lead additional evidence. It wants to prove the report of the investigator forwarded to the Advocate by a letter dated 11.10.2011.

A perusal of the record shows that the claim petition was filed on 18.09.2009. Before that date AIR (Accident Information Report) had already been filed and its copy was received by the Appellant insurance company. Obviously alongwith AIR copy of the driving license of the driver was also received. In any case a copy of driving license was filed by the Respondent No.1 on 18.09.2009 alongwith the claim petition. The Appellant put an appearance and filed written statement on 28.01.2010. The Appellant had sufficient time to obtain verification report. By an order dated 15.09.2011 the Appellant was given last opportunity to produce its evidence on the next date i.e.31.10.2011. The counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company himself closed the Appellant''s evidence on 31.10.2011. In the circumstances, the Appellant has not been able to make out a case for leading additional evidence in appeal.

CM Appl. No.688/2012 accordingly disposed of.

MAC. APP. 47/2012 4.

The Appellant impugns an award dated 28.11.2011 whereby a compensation of Rs.1,67,510/- was awarded to Respondent Jai Singh for having suffered injuries on 17.07.2009. It is stated in the ground of appeal that the compensation award is exorbitant and excessive. By impugned order following compensation was awarded under separate heads:

Sl. No.

Heads

Amount

1.

Loss of earning during the period of treatment

Rs. 33,208/-

2.

Pain and suffering

Rs. 25,000/-

3.

Conveyance

Rs. 10,000/-

4.

Special diet

Rs. 10,000/-

5.

Medical expenses

Rs. 89,302/-

The First Respondent suffered Trochanteric fracture of left femur. He was treated in Orthonova Hospital, where closed reduction (of fracture) was done by internal fixation with five hole with dynamic hip screw with 9.5 mm Richards Screw (Zimmer). The First Respondent remained on leave from 17.07.2009 to 31.12.2009. Compensation awarded under head (1) and (5) was on actual basis. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered, the period of confinement in the hospital and at home the compensation awarded under heads 2 to 5 cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive.

It is stated that the Second Respondent did not possess a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle and therefore the Appellant was entitled to avoid the liability or in any case at least right of recovery against the owner. The Appellant failed to prove that there was any breach of condition of policy. In the circumstances, the Appellant could not avoid the liability to indemnify insured.

The appeal is devoid of any merit, the same is disposed of.