High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 12 AHC CK 0214

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Keshav and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 5 December 2012 · Citation: (2013) 1 AWC 579

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Ambwani, J · Aditya Nath Mittal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
F.A.F.O. No. 4229 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 392 words

Sunil Ambwani and Aditya Nath Mittal, JJ.—We have heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company-the appellant. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is aggrieved by the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura, dated 28.8.2012 in Motor Accident Claims No. 543 of 2011, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,03,113 to the injured claimant out of which Rs. 1,98,113 is awarded towards the medical expenses and an amount of Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering.

2.

It is submitted by Shri Saurabh Srivastava that the first information report was lodged after three months and that the owner of the vehicle did not inform the insurance company of the accident The medical bills No. 63, 64 and 65 were not verified as the bill numbers and details were not clearly written on such bills.

3.

The accident and the injury caused to the claimant arising from such accident is not denied. The delay in lodging the first information report could at best have created a doubt over the accident. It would not have any bearing on the injuries and the reimbursement of medical expenses.

4.

We do not find that the failure of the owner of the offending vehicle to inform the insurance company would affect the rights of the claimant to claim compensation or would give the right of recovery to the insurance company from the owner of the vehicle. The failure to inform within the time stipulated in the contract would not defeat the rights of the claimant and the statutory obligation of the insurance company u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5.

In the present case the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards any disability causing loss of income on account of injuries. The Tribunal has only reimbursed the medical expenses for which the bills were proved. The Tribunal has also recorded findings that bill Nos. 63, 64 and 65 were also verified and proved. The chemist was examined by the claimant to prove the bills.

6.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error of law In the award given by the Tribunal.

7.

The first appeal from order is dismissed. The amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within a month.