Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hemlal and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2012MAC/1074/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal quashed an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The High Court held that the settlement scheme under Section 163-A is not maintainable for a claimant whose annual income exceeded Rs. 40,000/- and who failed to prove permanent disability or death.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award of the Tribunal was set aside, holding the claim petition under Section 163-A not maintainable.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hemlal and Anr. — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶2

(SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rangnath Chandrakar)

¶3

Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1074 of2008

¶4

AppellanV (Non-applicantNo.2)	Vs.	United India Insurance Company through Branch Office Stadium Transport Nagar, Korba (CG).	Limited Road,
Respondents fADplicantNo.D	1.	Hemlal s/o. Joohitram Chandra, age 34 years,'r/o. Rajapara, Sakti, P.S. Sakti, Distt. Janjgeer-Champa (CG).	d about & Tehsil
(Non-applicant No.1)	2.	Jagraj Singh, s/o. Harvans Singh, H.S. Complex Transport Nagar, Tahsil & Distt. Korba (CG).	r/o. 197 Korba,

¶5

(Appeal^{under Section173oftheMotorVehicle Act,1988)}

¶6

Present:

¶7

Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

¶8

MF. C.P. Lahare, counsel for respondent No.1.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(13-6-2012)

¶11

This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act, 1988) by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., is directed against the award dated 5-12-2007 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal') Sakti, District JanjgeerChampa (CG), in Claim Case No. 38/2006, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, by the claimant/respondent No.1 herein for grant of compensation is allowed.

¶12

The facts, in brief, are that on 29-3-2006 at about 4.00 a.m., when the injured/claimant was going^{toKharsiyafromSaktibydrivingSantroCar} bearing registration No, CG-04-T-0611 owned by respondent No.2, on the

¶13

^ /'

¶14

.^^ '%:^

¶15

way, a Truck was going ahead the car without lighting up indicator of backside. At that time, another truck was coming from opposite direction, looking to which the truck going ahead the car, was suddenly stopped by its driver, as a resutt the car dashed the truck which was going ahead. In this accident respondent No.1 herein received serious injuries. The matter was reported to Police Station Sakti and offence was registered against the unknown truck but the Police could not trace out the truck and its driver.

¶16

The claimant/respondent No.1 filed a claim petition against the respondent No.2 (owner of the car) and the appellant (Insurer of car) under Section 163-A of the Act for award of a total compensation of Rs. 14,50,0007- for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident on the submission that he was earning Rs.25,000/- month and due to the accident he suffered permanent disability. Learned Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded a total sum of Rs.1, 03,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the claimanVrespondent No.1 has mentioned his monthly income Rs.25,000/in the claim petition and in cross-examination he has admitted that his monthly income is Rs. 25, OOO/- and he has three trucks. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per llnd Schedule of the Act, the annual income of the victim should not exceed Rs. 40,000/- for maintainability of claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act. Thus, the income as pleaded by the claimant/respondent No.1 is more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum, therefore, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimant has

¶18

,,^;'-^^^;N'^ .^'^^^^ ^' .,'-^, I 1 i ;' yj

¶19

¶20

not considered all the aspects of the matters, specifically on the point of maintainability and thereby committed illegality. Thus, the impugned award passed by the Tribunat be set aside. In support of his arguments, tearned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Divisional OfHce, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipurvs. Smt. Kalpandas and otihers (M.A.No.995/2005) passed by Division Bench ofthis court on 17-42012.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent No.1 supports the impugned award.

¶22

1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record ofthe Tribunal including the impugned award.

¶23

A bare perusal of the record goes to show that the claimant has fited the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act showing his monthly income as Rs. 25,000/- which comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum.

¶24

¶25

Hon'ble the Supreme Couri: in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vsUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385, in paras 46 and 67 has held as under:

¶26

"46.

¶27

Section 163-A which has an overriding effect provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structure-formula basis. Sub-section (1)^{ofSection163-Acontainsnon-obstanteclausein} terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer is liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the second schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be Sub-section (2) of Section 163-A is in pari material with sub-section (3) of Section 140ofthe Act."

¶28

"67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceedings under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims

¶29

'-;:^ 1

¶30

-^,,,\

¶31

are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act".

¶32

In the light of the above, 1 am of the considered opinion that the claim petition itself was not maintainable at all as in the claim petition, the income of the injured/claimant has been pleaded as Rs. 25,000/- per month, meaning thereby the claimant/injured was earning Rs. 3,00,00/- per annum which is more than Rs. 40,000/- i.e., the maximum permissible income given in the Schedule-11 ofthe MotorVehicles Act, 1988. On going through the evidence, it reveals that claimant/respondent No.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that his monthly income is Rs. 25,000/and has three trucks which is further corroborated by his wife Chanchla Chandra. Even otherwise, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is maintainable in the case of death or permanent disability only but here in the case in hand, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the claimant/respondent No.1 has suffered any permanent disability as no document in this regard has been filed in the case nor the treating doctor has been examined to prove the permanent disability.

¶33

¶34

On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence and in view of the above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed by setting aside the impugned award holding that the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 was not maintainable.

¶35

¶36

However, the claimant shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, available underthe law, seeking compensation.

¶37

¶38

Sd/-

¶39