Allowed

Prem Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Gururani

Uttarakhand HC16 Dec 2021AO/70/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal regarding a motor accident claim. The Court held that strict evidence rules do not apply to Motor Accident Claim Tribunals. Enhanced compensation was awarded for medical expenses, pain, suffering, and loss of income based on available bills and injury proof.

What did the court decide?

Insurance Company directed to pay Rs. 35,000 with 6% interest; total compensation fixed at Rs. 45,000.

Prem Singh Vs Smt. Pushpa Gururani — Motor Accident Claims | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

Appeal From Order No. 70 of 2010

Prem Singh

..….Appellant

-Versus-

Smt. Pushpa Gururani & Ors. .......Respondents

¶8

Present:

¶9

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶10

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

¶11

Date of hearing and order

¶12

16.12.2021

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Sidhartha Sah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶14

2. In this appeal, the claimant of Motor Accident Case No. 33 of 2006 of the court of learned District Judge, MACT, Almora, has assailed the judgment dated 03.11.2009 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1.75 lakh.

¶15

3. The claimant-appellant filed an application for a compensation of Rs. 1.75 lakh under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act for brevity) on the ground that on 12.05.2006 while he was discharging his duties as a conduction of the passenger carrying bus no. UA04B-3831, a stone fell on the door of the vehicle injuring his head, neck and right hand. He sustained serious injuries including fracture of his wrist. It is also pleaded that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver. The learned District

¶16

Page No. 1 of 3

¶17

Judge, presiding the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the medical documents for treatment could not be relied upon as the petitioner has not examined the Doctor to prove the medical bills. The owner of the medical store was also not summoned to prove the medical bills thus the Tribunal concluded that the claimant cannot be granted compensation of expenses of the medical treatment. Since, the claimant has sustained injuries, he granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for physical pain and Rs. 5,000/- for medical expenses was granted.

¶18

4. It is well settled principle of law that Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is not a regular court in a strict sense of the term. In fact proceedings before the Tribunal are in nature of an enquiry and the Judge presiding said Tribunal can adopt any suitable procedure in his discretion. Hence, in a large number of cases, Courts in India held that the strict rule of pleadings and rule of evidence do not apply to such cases and in case there is no doubt regarding the genuineness of the any document, the evidence of the claimant himself should be construed sufficient to prove such documents.

¶19

5. In this case, as per the material available on record, it is seen that medical bills equivalent to a total sum of Rs. 17,988/- have been produced and proved by the appellant-claimant. So the Court takes into consideration the other incidental expenses like Doctor’s fees, transportation expenses and expenses of attendant and come to the conclusion a sum of Rs. 25,000/- should be granted towards medical expenses. He is also entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- for

¶20

Page No. 2 of 3

¶21

loss of income as he has suffered fracture on the wrist and did not work for two months.

¶22

6. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Judge, presiding the Tribunal should have granted a sum of Rs. 45,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has already paid to the claimant. Therefore, Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the appellant along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the present appeal. The other findings recorded by the Tribunal are left undisturbed including right to recovery.

¶23

7. In view of the above, the appeal from order is disposed of, accordingly.

¶24

8. Urgent certified copy of the order be provided as per rules.

¶25

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶26

¶27

Page No. 3 of 3

Prem Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Gururani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Gururani

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

Ratan Singh Vs Nakli Singh

Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax Vs Bablu

Sumedh Saini Vs Assistant Collector 1ST Class Haridwar

Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Haridwar District Haridwar

Samta Yog Ashram Trust Vs Jagdish Kumar Kapoor

Tabbasur Hussain Vs the New India Insurance Company Ltd.