Partly allowed

National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Indu Gulati

Uttarakhand HC10 Nov 2021AO/553/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. and Nagar Nigam Haridwar challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. However, it allowed the claimant's appeal in part, increasing the compensation sum by Rs. 50,000/- for loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The claims brought by the Insurance Company and Nagar Nigam were dismissed. The appeal by the claimant was allowed in part, increasing compensation by Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum payabl

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Indu… — Motor Accident Claims | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

AO No. 553 of 2011

¶3

National Insurance Company Ltd.

¶4

..................Appellant

¶5

Mr. Prabhat Pande, Adv. for the appellant

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Smt. Indu Gulati and others

¶8

……...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the respondents

¶10

With

¶11

AO No. 52 of 2012

¶12

Nagar Nigam Haridwar

¶13

..................Appellant

¶14

Mr. Lalit Miglani, Adv. for the appellant

¶15

-versus-

¶16

National Insurance Company Ltd. and others.

¶17

……...Respondents

¶18

Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for the respondents

¶19

With

¶20

AO No. 90 of 2012

¶21

Smt. Indu Gulati

¶22

..................Appellant

¶23

Mr. Tapan Singh, Adv. for the appellant

¶24

Page 1 of 5

¶25

-versus-

¶26

Sri Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others

¶27

……...Respondents Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for the respondents

¶28

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

¶29

Judgment 10.11.2021

¶30

Heard Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for National Insurance Company Ltd., Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the private respondents and Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for Nagar Nigam, Haridwar.

¶31

This judgment arises out of the three separate appeals filed by the claimant, owner of the vehicle i.e. Nagar Nigam, Haridwar and National Insurance Company, challenging the award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 08 of 2008, wherein as per the award dated 22.10.2011, a compensation of Rs. 8,75,377/- has been awarded.

¶32

The counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as per the present law, the Insurance Company has a right of recovery and in this case, the learned Tribunal has already granted the right of recovery to the Insurance Company. Hence, the Insurance Company does not have any serious grievance in award impugned.

¶33

The learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar submits that the accident did not take place as stated by the claimant rather the JCB was standing on the road and the deceased along with his brother driving

¶34

Page 2 of 5

¶35

the scooter rash and negligently hit the JCB and got serious injuries as a result of this he died.

¶36

Hence, the death of the deceased has not been caused by any rash and negligent driving of JCB driver or any action of the employees of the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar. Therefore, he contends that the award of compensation and a direction to pay the same to the claimant is illegal.

¶37

However, he admits that such plea has not been taken in the written statement filed by the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar and no evidences, either oral or documentary, were led on behalf of the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar.

¶38

The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent in the connected appeal filed by the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar submits that there are material available on record to show that the stepney of the scooter, which was attached to the rear side of the scooter, was damaged in the accident, which indicates that the deceased’s scooter was dashed from the back side by the JCB.

¶39

Moreover, he further contends that brother of the deceased was examined and various relevant documents such as copy of the FIR, copy of the charge sheet and the post mortem report were exhibited, which prima facie shows by preponderance of evidence that deceased died because of the rash and negligent action of the driver.

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

In that view of the matter, the Court comes to the conclusion that the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company and the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar being devoid of merit have to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeals filed by the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle i.e. Nagar Nigam, Haridwar are dismissed.

¶42

As far as, the compensation is concerned. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the amount of non-pecuniary damages is very less in this case. This Court comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate, the wife of the deceased is claimant and she became widow at a young age. She is entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of consortium; she is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total amount of non-pecuniary damages comes to Rs. 50,000/-.

¶43

Hence, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part increasing the amount of compensation by Rs. 50,000/-. It is submitted that the entire money has been deposited. Hence, the Insurance Company is directed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% from the date of filing of appeal, within two months from today. The Insurance Company also has the right of the recovery of this additional amount along with interest to be paid to the claimant from the owner of the vehicle.

¶44

Page 4 of 5

¶45

With such observations, all the appeals are disposed of. The amount deposited before the Tribunal be released in favour of the claimant, as per the proportion fixed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- of both the appellants i.e. the Insurance Company and Nagar Nigam, Haridwar, be refunded to them along with accrued interest on proof of deposits of the additional amount before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle..

¶46

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶47

(S.K.Mishra) Judge

¶48

A/-

¶49

Page 5 of 5

National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Indu Gulati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Indu Gulati

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

Aizaj Ahmed Vs the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Basanti Devi Joshi

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kundan Singh

M/s Bombay Hospital and Research Center Near Saurabh Hotel Vs Anil Gupta

Siddharth Mehta Vs Sri Mayank Mehta

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kumari Surajkala