Allowed

Nirmal Waswani v. Narendra Pal Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Apr 2011MAC/594/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench allowed the appellant's appeal against the High Court's order enhancing compensation in a motor accident claim. The Bench set aside the enhancement, restored the Tribunal's award of Rs. 20,789, and upheld the exoneration of the insurer due to the driver holding a fake license.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned order was set aside; and the award of the Claim Tribunal was restored.

Nirmal Waswani Vs Narendra Pal Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

DWISION BENCH K I

¶2

CORAM: HON‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV^GliPTA, G.J.^& HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATFg CHANDRAKAR. J.

¶3

Misc. Appeal (C)^{No.594§of2006}

¶4

Atppenan N nrmal Waswam age 18 yeats s/o Shn Raju Waswani r/o near Raj V!dlo Katora Talab Raipur C G

¶5

VERSU8

¶6

Respondents : ; Narendra Pal sungh s/o Shn Ekbai ‘ Smgh r/o near Pundary Get^Pundty, Ralpur C G

¶7

Chhabl Lal Patel s/o Shn Rdhroopa Patel r/o Saraipall Tahstl Saralpall dlstnct Mahasamund C G New lndia lnsumnce^CompanyLtd., Divisional Oflice, Madina Building, Kachheri Chduk, Tahsil and district Ralpur C.G.

¶8

Misc. APPEAL UNDERsEcTION^{173 OF THEMOTO} R IEHICLE$^AGE1$$8w

¶9

Present: Shn s S Ragput counsel lorthe^appellant Shri Anil Gulatl counsel^{forrespondentNo} 2 Shn Dashrath Gupta,^{counselforrespondentNo.3.} ~ \

¶10

ORDER : (4*^AprilA2011) The followmg order of the Court was passed b,y“ Rajeev Gupta, c^J qr

¶11

qr ~

¶12

.is ~ Appellant! claimant Nlrmel Waemnl sekinge ’enhancement'ofthe ‘ oomensatron‘award'edvblhe’liwdditionelz;pya

¶13

Motof Aocident Claims Tribunal, Raigluf (for short ‘the‘ Tribunal) vide award dated 20.07.2006, passed pn Ciaim Case No.05l2005 ¥ ’ r 2} S As against the compensation of Rs 5 70 000i- chimed by]. ‘ > appeilant/ claimant Nirmal Waswam through his father Ragu, Waswam by fling a ctalm petition^under section 166 of the Motor Vehlcies Act for the Injuries sustained by him In the motor acoldent on28;09.2004, the^:Trlbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.20,789/— as: oompensation a'Iong withiriterest Q 6%per a annum from the date of filingof theiolaim petitionsatill the date of actual payment.

¶14

v3) Shri S.S. Rajput, teamed counset for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has'erred in exonerating the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck from its iiability to pay y compensation to the isolaimants; and in awarding low V compensation of Rs.20i78791-only though the‘appellantlclaimant _ sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the macr ’ accident. 4) 7 Shri‘Dashrath Gupta leamed counsel for respondent No 3 «the New lndia Insurance Company Limited the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the dnver of the Truck was not holding a) e-valid and effective drivmg license the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer of the Truck from Its liability tomay r, v compensation to the claimant

¶15

/r////

¶16

‘
,ud Ia‘h

¶17

s'hri Ann Gula,ti larnede^‘Go unsel for rasaden‘tpn^No. 2, enbhai La! Paw , the owner of the ofedingfh vehieel Tkruc V contended^{thattheTribunalhasMonglyexona} erted the isnurer ra of the Tucrk frmé^its iibtytalit‘o pay^compnsation e^{totheclaimntg} Before the Trbunat.i^{theclaimanteamine} gxd two Wttnessos W t NWni)irmalaewa Including^himself (AW1^{Raju WasanianiAW£} m suportp of his^ctaim For the^{reasonsbestknownto} teh a otaimant^and his father no doctor^wasexamined bieore the bn ‘ Tribunal^{toestabiishthenatureoftheinunessaid} j^toahavevee sustained the claimant^{inthemotoracident} :o^{andthetacttha} t by tjshose-'lnurie^resultdin ev annype’rmaent isay.tibtlit m7) T the medicai^{eemrmtetpmducec} d by he questino^whethe r the claimant^{beforethe’Trlbuna"} l^Withot u^examiningrte h Dtroco t wh o idssue^the certificate-Can bee‘relid' upon^as susanvbttie r no eidvence^{fortheassessent} m^{ofthecorpensatinoameupfo} theme^cf M3. sRTc v. consideration^{abero‘r’the”} e^Aex p^courtin r ‘fi 7c wéheein it P. Thirualp^{Reddy,reorted} p^{inizoooz3c:139,} wasnobserved‘i p6ara asunedr:

¶18

“.6 After hearing^learne d counsel^{fortherespondentm} claimant^{whomade anattempt-Itosupport theorderofth} e High Court^{wefndthattherewasnojustrticationforth} e . High Court^{torelyonthedisabilitycertificateissuedb} y Dr Sudhakar^{Reddyandenhancethecompensationb} y treating^theinjuryas permanent^{disabilitytobe} 45 per

. (o

l g i f

g K,

i l

deposmon of Dr KM l Mrtm and awa'ded a lust and fatr compensatuon. The High Court erre1d In gisturblng the same and enhancing the compensatiion. Consequently, we auow this appeal, set aside the irppugned erder and { restore the award of the Claimé Tribunat. The respondem—ctaimant is atlowed to wtth’idraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn.” , 8) The Apex Court in a recent dictum^’in the casepf Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008)^{7scc305,reiteratedthesameviewwiththefollowing} observations in para 11 :

¶28

“11. The certificate tn question in this case was obtained after two years. lt is not knownas to whether; the Civil Surgeon of the hospital treated the appetlant On what basrs such a certificate was issued two years after the accident took place Is not known The author of the said certifcate had not been examined. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself it was not admissible in evidence. Whether the disability at 60%“ was calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act orotherwise^isnotknown. lt is also not known as to whether he was competent to issue such a certificate. lt even does not appear that the contentions raised before us had either been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal as also the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties. In absence otvv any contention having been raised in regard to the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation^Act which, in our opinion, ex facie has no application, the same, in

¶29

our opinion cannot be permitted to be raised for the fsst " time x

¶30

The medical certmoates prodqced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the docters who had issued those g certifloates, in view of the above quoted ‘dicta of the £pex Court in the cam or A.P. sRrc v. P. Thirdpai Ready (supra) and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v: Yudhvir Singh and another gSupm),^{cannotbetakenintoconsiderationforenhancement} of the compensation in the case.

¶31

IVWe, therefore, do not hnd any wope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) So far as the finding reeorded by the Tribunai leading to exoneration of the insurer of the Truck is conoemed, we gather from paras 19 to 24 of the impugned award that the Tribunal'after considering the evidence led by the Insurance Company by q examining the licensing clerk of the R.T.0., NAW‘i Raiesh Kumar ~ Bharghav, came to the conclusion that the license of the driver of the Truck was never issued by the R.T.O. Raipur and as such, the said license was a fake and forged license

¶32

0n a thorough scrutiny of the entire evrdence available on record and the contents of the license of the Truck driven We are. satisfied that the above tinding recorded by the Tribunal does not x suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. \

¶33

Nirmal Waswani v. Narendra Pal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Waswani v. Narendra Pal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariram and Others Vs Mainejar Yadav and Others

Mahendra Sahgal and Another Vs Mohd.Saiyyad Nafis and Others

G.Narayan Swami Vs Rai Sing Sahu and Others

Smt. Puraeen Bai and Ors. Vs Nandkishore and Ors.

Smt.Hajari Bai and Others Vs Ramkumar Yadav and Others

Gopalmani Nirmalkar and Others Vs Rajkumar and Others