Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Another on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153765
Reserved on 11.7.2023
Delivered on 4.8.2023
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3266 of 2007
Appellant :- United India Insurance Co Ltd
Respondent :- Smt. Shanti Devi And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kant Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- Vidya Bhaskar Singh,Kamal Singh Yadav,Purushottam Pandey,Sudhanshu Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. This appeal, at the behest of the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., challenges the judgment and award dated 7.9.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No.382 of 1997 awarding a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%.
2. The appellant-Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by award and has contended that the award is bad. It is submitted that the claimant is entitled to only for a sum of Rs.5000/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings and not Rs. 40,000/-. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the medical expenses could not have been Rs.20,000/- but has to be actual expenses. It is further submitted that no document showing disability of the claimant was filed. It is lastly submitted that interest at the rate of 6% should not have been granted and award of interest would be only if there is default on the part of the party liable to pay and, in this case, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation, it should not have been saddled with the said liability.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent-claimants.
4. At the outset, it mentioned that the parties are referred as 'appellant' and 'claimants (appellant for Insurance Company and Claimant for respondent-claimants).
5. The accident having taken place on 22.6.1996 at 12.00 noon is not in dispute. Jeep bearing No. UP 27A 5200 being driven rashly and negligently is not in dispute. No other ground which can justify the avoidance of indemnification under Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 have been raised except issue of quantum of compensation. Therefore, the only issue to be decided is quantum of compensation awarded i.e. whether it is just compensation or not.
6. The period of treatment was about one and a half months in Government Hospital and thereafter in private hospital. There is fracture in the lower limb for which private doctor treated the claimant. The Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income or for loss (actual) as there was no certificate of disability. It is cardinal principle of motor accident claims matters and law that fracture will bring about partial or permanent disablement and, therefore, sum of Rs. 25,000/- for no fault liability under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was payable to the claimant as the accident occurred after the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition was for Rs. 1,40,000/- and only Rs.60,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, meaning thereby, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- more than the amount under no fault liability. However, looking to the long period of treatment, hospitalization and even under non pecuniary damages, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.60,000/-is unjust and requires interference of this Court.
7. As far as interest is concerned, it is covered by the provisions of Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, grant of interest at the rate of 6% is also just and proper.
8. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. The amount kept in fixed deposit be disbursed to the claimant forthwith.
Order Date :- 4.8.2023
DKS
