The High Court dismissed an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 3.5 lakhs. Finding no merit in claims regarding contributory negligence or licence validity, the Court held the compensation quantum was not excessive.
The appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company was dismissed.
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.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MISC. APPEAL (C) NO. 1478 OF 2017
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through the Branch Manager, Rama Trade Centre Rajeev, in front of Plaza, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
versus
Singh Dhruv.
… Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
10/11/2017
1. The present is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, preferred by the appellant-insurance company, assailing the award dated 30.6.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No.928/2014.
2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, in a death case, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the claimants, with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application.
3. Challenge in the present appeal by the insurance company is to the quantum of compensation awarded and the liability part is also challenged as there is an element of contributory negligence which can be inferred from the factual matrix of the case so also, the deceased in the instant
-2-
case was in a drunk condition at the time of accident and which further strengthened the claim for contributory negligence. The driving licence of the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident was not produced and that an inference has to be drawn that they did not have an effective licence at the time of accident.
4. Perusal of record would show that the witness who has been examined on behalf of the insurance company has not been able to adduce sufficient proof before the Tribunal with which the Tribunal could have taken a different view than that has been arrived at by it. This Court therefore does not find any strong case made out by the insurance company calling for an interference with the impugned award. Further, the amount of compensation awarded also does not seem to be either exorbitant or excessive as out of Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded only towards the medical expenditures incurred and only Rs.1,50,000/- is towards the pain and suffering, special diet and under other heads.
5. The appeal of the insurance thus being devoid of merits the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/ Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for a fatal motor accident is reasonable and requires interference.
Whether there are grounds of contributory negligence or violation of driving licence requirements that justify reducing the insurance liability.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Smt. Rukmani Dhruv
Ravishankar Dhurv
Kumari Shushma Dhruv
Ravindra Dhruv
Mukesh Bhardwaj
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
