Dismissed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritam Das and Others

Uttarakhand HC18 Dec 2008AO/71/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the appeal by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's judgment and award of Rs. 83,000 with interest to the injured driver, finding no illegality in the Tribunal's conclusions regarding negligence, validity of licenses/permits, or the calculation of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2006 is confirmed.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pritam Das and… — Motor Accident Claims | Uttarakhand HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal From Order No. 71 of 2007

¶3

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Pritam Das and others …Respondents

¶6

Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for appellant Mr. Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for respondent no. 3

¶7

Dated: December 18, 2008

¶8

Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.

¶9

This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred by the appellant i.e. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., against the judgment and award dated 2.12.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi, in M.A.C.C. No. 34 of 2005, Pritam Das versus Sri Anil Kumar and others.

¶10

Brief facts of the case, according to the claimant, are that on 15.12.2004 when the claimant-Pritam Das was travelling in Tata Spacio No. U.A.07-C-9010, it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, at Ghasald, Dhari-Kafnol motor road and fell into a ditch. In the said accident, claimant along with other passengers sustained injuries. Due to this accident, the claimant sustained injuries in his backbone and his right hand was fractured. The claimant has become 40% disabled. The claimant had been working as driver and due to his injuries he has not been able to do his work of driving. The claimant remained

¶11

¶12

admitted in hospital w.e.f. 16.12.2004 to 16.1.2005. The accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle in question. The claimant was 36 years of age and had been earning Rs.4000/- per month at the time of accident. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensations along with interest of 12% per annum against opposite parties on account of injuries sustained by him.

¶13

Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of vehicle Tata Spacio No. U.A.07-C-9010 filed their joint written statement denying the contents of claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that on the date of accident vehicle in question was being plied by opposite party no. 1 slowly and carefully and opposite party no. 1 tried to avoid the said accident, but unfortunately accident had occurred. It has been stated that opposite party no. 1 is an experienced and skilled driver and on the date of accident opposite party no. 1 was driving the said vehicle carefully, but all of a sudden accident had occurred, for which answering opposite parties cannot be held liable. It has further been stated that on the date of accident opposite party no. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence and all the papers relating to vehicle in question were valid. On the date of accident the said vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 3 and therefore the liability to the compensation, if any, is of opposite party no. 3-insurance company.

¶14

Opposite party no. 3-insurance company filed its written statement denying the contents of claim petition for want of knowledge. It has been pleaded

¶15

¶16

that amount of compensation has been claimed by the claimants arbitrarily and excessively without any cogent reason and claimant is not entitled to get any compensation. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that alleged vehicle was not having registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate and on the date of alleged accident driver of vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence. It has also been pleaded that alleged vehicle was not having route permit to drive the vehicle in hill routes and driver was not having valid driving licence to ply the vehicle in hill routes. The claimant was not authorized passenger in the vehicle at the time of accident and monthly income of claimant has wrongly been mentioned. The claimant has not sustained any injury and alleged injuries have wrongly been shown. The claim petition has been filed by the claimant in collusion with opposite parties no. 1 and 2. The claimant neither clearly disclosed the insurance policy nor submitted insurance related papers.

¶17

The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition, which were discussed in great detail. Parties led evidence in support of their case.

¶18

The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.83,000/- against opposite party no. 3-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 02.12.2006.

¶19

¶20

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

¶21

Heard Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for appellant-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sri Neeraj Upreti, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

¶22

As far as factum of accident is concerned, the claimant stated in the claim petition that on 15.12.2004 he was travelling in Tata Spacio No. U.A.07-C-9010 as a passenger for going to DhariKafnol. The said vehicle was being driven by opposite party no. 1 and vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of driver at Ghasald, Dhari-Kafnol motor road and fell into a ditch. In the said accident, claimant along with other passengers sustained injuries. The claimant himself has been produced as PW-1 and supported his version as stated in the claim petition. This witness also stated that he was brought to P.H.C. Naugaon for treatment by the help of local people and thereafter he was referred to Dehradun. This witness has also been cross examined and in his cross examination he stated that driver of vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. This witness also stated that he sustained serious injuries in his backbone and on account of the same upper part of his body has become 40% disabled. Opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence which may indicate that at the time of accident driver of vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, but they have

¶23

¶24

stated in their written statement that driver tried to avoid the accident, but unfortunately accident had occurred. The Tribunal held that this accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver, as a result of which claimant sustained serious and common injuries on his person and he remained admitted in hospital for treatment. The Tribunal further held that claimant has become 40% disabled due to the accident and on account of the same claimant has not been able to do any work. I do not find any illegality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and same deserves to be confirmed.

¶25

While deciding issue no. 2, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that from perusal of driving licence (paper no. 20C) it reveals that driving licence was renewed, valid and effective for being plied in hill routes upto 10.6.2005. Tourist permit (paper no. 21C) and registration certificate (paper no. 22C/2) have been filed on record, which show that on the date of accident papers of vehicle in question were valid and effective. On the other hand, insurance company has not adduced any evidence which may indicate that at the time of accident driver was not having valid and effective driving and owner of vehicle was not having valid and effective papers relating to vehicle in question. The learned Tribunal has recorded the finding that on the date of accident driver was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in hill routes and owner of vehicle was having all valid and effective papers relating to vehicle in question. I do not find any illegality in the said finding recorded by

¶26

¶27

the Tribunal and the same deserves to be confirmed.

¶28

As far as amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant is concerned, the evidence on record shows that claimant was admitted in P.H.C. Naugaon after the accident and on the same day he was referred to Doon Hospital, Dehradun, where claimant remained admitted for a month. Paper no. 30C/3 to 30C/13 which have been filed by the claimant, are bills of medicines etc. amounting to Rs.23,111/-. Besides this, the claimant filed bills for transportation, which is paper no. 30C/14 and 30C/15, which does not appear to be justified as the claimant was admitted in Doon Hospital on 16.12.2004, whereas date of vehicle booking is of 17.12.2004. But, it appears from the record that claimant had to incur a sum of Rs.23,111/- on his treatment as well as on purchase of medicines etc. The Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.23,000/under the aforesaid head. I do not find any illegality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same deserves to be confirmed.

¶29

It further reveals from perusal of record that as per disability certificate, disability of claimant is upto an extent of 40%. According to claimantPritam Das (PW-1), he has not been able to run his profession on account of disability sustained by him in the accident and due to this his source of income has come to an end. In addition to this, claimant must have suffered physical pain and mental agony during his treatment after the accident. The claimant has also stated that he was a skilled driver

¶30

¶31

and he used to earn Rs.4000/- per month from the said job, but after the accident he has not been able to do any work and he has become unemployed. The claimant did not file any income certificate. In this eventuality, it cannot be presumed that income of claimant was Rs.4000/- per month. Besides this, the claimant must have engaged an attendant for his care and claimant must have expended some amount on him. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the claimant under the head of expenses incurred on permanent disability of claimant upto an extent of 40%, physical and mental agony, attendant etc. I also am of the view that the said amount under the aforesaid head has rightly been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000 + Rs.23,000=Rs.83,000/as compensation to the claimant. As far as interest is concerned, the same also appears to be justified and needs no interference. The Tribunal, in my opinion, has not committed any illegality in calculating the amount of compensation. I do not find any illegality in the method adopted by the Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation.

¶32

For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2006 passed by Tribunal, is hereby confirmed.

¶34

¶35

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.

¶36

(B.C. Kandpal, J.)

¶37

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritam Das and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritam Das and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management, Devta Bhure Sah Trust Vs Smt. Puspa Manas

Smt. Roshani Devi Vs Suratsingh Sajwan and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs Smt. Susheela Devi and Another

Isem Singh and Ors. Vs Mam Chand and Ors.

K.C.Tyagi Vs Dr. Anil Bhatnagar and Another

Divi Chand Pursaura Vs the New India Assurance and Anr.