Dismissed

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rama Shankar Jaiswal and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2018FAFO/2205/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by an insurance company against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order awarding compensation. The court held that the award was just, the multiplier was proper, and no interference was required.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed in limine; compensation amount remitted to Tribunal for payment to injured claimant.

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2205 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶4

Respondent :- Rama Shankar Jaiswal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶6

This first appeal from order has been moved by the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. against judgement and award order dated 16.02.2018/19.02.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Deoria in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.49 of 2013, Rama Shankar Jaiswal Vs. Jainath Chauhan, whereby the appellantInsurance Company- was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,23,000/along with accruing interest at the rate of 7% per annum and the amount has been directed to be paid within on month from the date of the order.

¶7

The following contentions have been raised in support of this appeal. The first being that the factum of accident has not been proved. The testimony of P.W.1 the injured Rama Shanker is itself contradictory and the same cannot be accepted on its face value. No such accident took place. The claim raised by the injured is not supported by the facts and circumstances of the case. The tribunal has acted more on conjecture and surmises than on material on record.

¶8

It is noteworthy that the son of the

¶9

injured, who was driving the vehicle in question did not receive any injury, which speaks volume of falsity of claim raised by the appellant that no such incident took place. The discharge slip is indicative of fact that the injured was admitted to the District Hospital, Deoria for one day only and he says that he was admitted for four months.

¶10

Considered the above submission and also perused certified copy of the award dated 16.02.2018, in this case as per the claim raised it appears that some accident took place on 18.12.2012 around 12 noon when the injured Rama Shanker was sitting as pillion rider on motorcycle, being driven by his son while going for marketing. As soon as motorcycle reached on Deoria Baledarh Marg near Pakferwaha culvert (Pulia) when Tata Magic UP 52 8129 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the motorcycle from its side, due to which the injured claimant- Rama Shanker sustained serious injuries and got his right leg fractured, bone was broken from various parts. Apart from that he also sustained injuries on his head. Thereafter, he was treated at District Hospital, Deoria by Dr.Chandra Prakash Mishra and he claims that total amount Rs.88,910/- incurred towards medical expenses. Claimant submitted that he was 48 years of age and was engaged in wholesale business and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The incident was registered under Section 279, 337,338 IPC at Kotwali, district Deoria. Claimant sought in all Rs.14,10,000/- with accruing interest

¶11

at the rate of 9%. The case was contested and claim was resisted by the present appellant. Written statement was filed, whereupon certain issues were made after considering the material on record. The claim petition was partly allowed to the extent of Rs.1,23,000/coupled with 7% interest.

¶12

In so far as contention raised on point of accident by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned in this way it is obvious that the testimony of Rama Shanker Jaiswal P.W.1 and the cross- examination done, cannot be faulted with and it cannot be said that no such accident ever took place. Nothing adverse has emerged in his (P.W.1) crossexamination. However, injury in the shape of fracture on the right leg of the injured is itself indicative of fact that some incident took place on the date of occurrence i.e. 18.11.2012. No doubt the injured faltered that he remained admitted to the District Hospital for four months, but that aberration alone would not be sufficient to throw away the claim of the claimant, under the facts and circumstances of the case. It is obvious that the police produced all relevant record of the injured have not been found to be involved in manipulative activity. That way also, it is established circumstance against the insurance company because the expenses incurred towards the treatment have been found to be genuinely incurred and the same is supported by documents. So far as the other aspects of this case are concerned and primarily, the contention that the son of the injured did not

¶13

receive any injury, that way, it cannot be said that each and everyone, who is travelling in or on any vehicle, will always receive injury. Escapement from injury is natural phenomenon in any accidental case.

¶14

Looking to the entirety of the case, the compensation awarded appears to be just and consistent and the multiplier which was made applicable by the tribunal concerned is find to be proper and correct one. No interference is required.

¶15

In view of above, there is no error explicit or implicit in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, this First Appeal From Order is dismissed in limine .

¶16

8.Rs.25,000/- shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal and will be adjusted towards payment to be made to the injured claimant.

¶17

Parties shall bear their own cost. Order Date :- 1.5.2018 Raj

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rama Shankar Jaiswal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rama Shankar Jaiswal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Hari Narain and Ohters

Anurag Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Tej Narain Dubey and Others Vs Tileshwari Devi and Others

Kumari Poonam Vs Shailendra Kumar and 2 Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sahina Khatoon and 4 Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sanjay Kumar and Anr.