Appeal by insurance company against MAC Tribunal award of Rs. 2,68,400 to motorcycle driver for accident. Court rejected challenge on license renewal ground and excess compensation claim, dismissing appeal.
Appeal dismissed; amount deposited remitted to Tribunal for adjustment to claimants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 16 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2122 of 2018 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Respondent :- Ram Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Manohar Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent and perused the material brought on record.
By way of the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Kanpur Nagar, in MACP No.397 of 2015 Ram Singh Vs. Smt. Rani Devi Verma and another, whereby the claimantrespondent was awarded compensation in all Rs.2,68,400/-.
Relevant facts worth consideration appear to be that the accident in question took place on 15.03.2014 when the injured-claimant/respondent was driving his motorcycle U.P.78 BU-2527 with his cousin brother Sanjit as pillion rider. No sooner did he reach near Abdulpur than a car UP 78 BX 3355 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the same with motorcycle of the injured Ram Singh due to which he sustained serious injury and was rendered physically disabled.
It was claimed that the injured Ram Singh was of 25 years of age at the time of the accident and he used to earn Rs.8000/- per month out of
agricultural work. The claim was opposed both by the Insurance Company and the owner of the aforesaid offending car, whereupon several issues were framed by the Tribunal for adjudication of the claim petition.
Issue nos.1 and 2 related to the factum of the accident and contributory negligence of the claimant-respondent, if any. Issues were decided in favour of the claimant-respondent and it was held by the Tribunal that there was no contributing negligence on the part of the claimant-respondent. Similarly, issue no.3 was framed on fact of insurance of the aforesaid offending car UP 78 BX 3355 with the present appellant - Insurance Company. This issue was also decided in the affirmative against the appellant. Issue no.4 related to factum of driving licence of the aforesaid offending car being driven by its driver Ganesh Chandra. Finding recorded by the Tribunal is in consonance with the provisions of law and under context the same is upheld by this Court. Issue no.5 related to factum of compensation as to what compensation and to what extent, the claimant-respondent was entitled to receive.
Relevant to mention that medical bill of treatment worth Rs.2,28,400/- was found to be genuine, therefore, the same was accepted to be correct but regarding which no specific or general objection was raised before the Tribunal which may adversely castigate genuineness of these bills. Also at this stage, the appellant did not come
with any such material. The Tribunal correctly took these expenses incurred by the claimantrespondent towards his treatment. Apart from that, Rs.10,000/- were given as diet money, Rs.10,000/- were given as expenses for availing service of attendant, and Rs.20,000/- was given for physical and mental agony. Therefore, the petition was allowed for Rs.2,68,400/- along with interest @ 7 %.
In the wake of above fact, contention has been raised that in this case, liability ought to have been fastened on the owner of the offending car UP 78 BX 3355, for the reason that on the date of accident, the driving licence of the driver of the aforesaid offending car was not effective but the same was renewed in the year 2014.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further questioned the entire amount of compensation as the same being excessive.
Learned counsel for the caveator-respondent has justified the award and the compensation amount.
The contention extended by the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable, for the reason that driving licence of the offending car was in fact issued in favour of the driver Ganesh Chandra in the year 1979. From that period onwards, licence was renewed from time to time up to 2010. It means that the driver of the offending car had sufficient skill and knowledge and experience to ply the car of the order mentioned in the licence.
The licence in question was never cancelled or withheld by the concerned transport authority in the meanwhile after year 2010. But this licence was renewed in the year 2014 for further period of three years up to 2017. This by itself is indicative of fact that the driver was possessing skill, knowledge and experience to ply the offending car and merely non-renewal of the driving licence would not effect his credibility and skill as a driver. Therefore, reasoning recorded by the Tribunal is hereby sustained.
Insofar as the entire amount of compensation is concerned, obviously medical bills worth Rs.2,28,400/- under circumstances have been found to be genuine one and another break-up amount in three categories (Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/-) are, under circumstances, reasonable amount for diet, services of attendant and pain and suffering, therefore, the same need no interference by this Court at this stage.
For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
However, the amount (Rs.25,000/-) deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned which shall be adjusted towards payment of compensation among the claimants in the ratio fixed by it.
Order Date :- 23.4.2018 rkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the denial of driver’s license renewal affects liability for accident.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Ram Singh
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
