Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Gouri Shanker vs Mohd. Iqbal & Ors on 10 August, 2021
216
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
MA 534/2014
Gouri Shanker .....Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Jatinder Singh, Adv.
Versus
Mohd. Iqbal & ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dhar, Adv., for No.3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2014
delivered by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in
Claim No.24/2012, whereby the claimant-Gouri Shanker has been held entitled
to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,19,000/- along with pendentelite
and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future
income from the owner payable by insurance company with right to recover the
same from the owner-insured.
2. The facts as borne out from the record are that a Tipper bearing No.JK11-
4837, while being driven rashly and negligently, hit the appellant-claimant on
25.03.2011 at about 10.30 AM at Yard No.6, Narwal, Jammu, as a result of
which received injuries and his left leg got fractured. Firstly, he remained
2 MA 534/2014
admitted in Bee Enn Charitable Hospital, Jammu and thereafter he was operated
upon in a hospital at Amritsar (Punjab). The petitioner as per the disability
certificate issued by the Board of Doctors suffered a permanent disability of
30% which when compared to whole body shall be reduced by 50%.
3. Appellant-Gouri Shanker filed a claim petition before the learned
Tribunal and the learned Tribunal passed the award dated 13.06.2014 holding
the appellant entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,19,000/-
along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the
amount of loss of future income from the owner payable by insurance company
with right to recover the same from the owner-insured. Being not satisfied the
appellant has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the award.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, examined the pleadings,
documents and perused the record of learned Tribunal.
5. Admittedly, the appellant received injuries in a motor vehicular accident
involving the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by its driver
on 25.03.2011. It has also not been disputed that the appellant was operated
upon in a hospital at Amritsar. Further, the record shows that the appellant
visited the hospital at Amritsar on different occasions between 26.03.2011 to
17.10.2011. Since the appellant was operated upon in a hospital at Amritsar and
thereafter visited Amritsar on several occasions for follow-up checkup, an
attendant must have remained there with the appellant on all these occasions.
However, the award shows that the amount on these counts have not been
awarded in favour of appellant. Therefore, I deem it proper to modify the award
3 MA 534/2014
and held that besides the awarded amount, the appellant shall also be entitled to
an amount of Rs.20,000/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% per
annum being the amount incurred on transportation charges as well as the
expenses incurred on the attendant.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company took the plea that the
offending vehicle was being plied without a valid route permit. Learned
Tribunal was of the view that the route permit of offending vehicle had expired
on 18.01.2011, thereafter was renewed on 16.06.2011 having its validity upto
18.01.2012. Since the accident had occurred on 25.03.2011 and the validity of
route permit had already expired on 18.01.2011, as such the Tribunal fastened
the liability to pay the awarded amount on the owner/insured of offending
vehicle. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal directed the insurance
company to pay the awarded amount with right to recover the same from the
owner-insured.
7. Now the question arises for consideration is: whether the owner/insured
can be held liable for payment of compensation?
8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder
section 81(5) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
"81. Duration and renewal of permits. - (1)....(4)
(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after
the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from
the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary
permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a
temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such
temporary permit shall be refunded."
4 MA 534/2014
9. Admittedly, the offending vehicle caused the accident on 25.03.2011 at
Yard No.6, Narwal, Jammu and the route permit was valid for all J&K roads.
The validity of route permit expired on 18.01.2011, whereas it came to be
renewed on 16.06.2011 upto 18.01.2012; meaning thereby the route permit came
to be renewed for a period of one year upto 18.01.2012, thus the renewal of
route permit was having retrospective effect. Further, as per Section 81(5) of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where a route permit is renewed after the expiry of
period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry.
10. Further, even if it is presumed that what was pleaded by appellant-
Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal was correct, still it cannot avoid
the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the injured, as the defences
available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act are very limited. Non-renewal of
Route Permit is not the defence available to the Insurance Company to avoid
liability to compensate the third party. Further, enactment of Motor Vehicles Act
is welfare legislation with an objective to give financial aid to the victims of
motor vehicular accidents and also to the persons who are deprived of their
physical capabilities because of such accidents. This legislation aids such
victims or their dependants to lead a respectable life. Thus, the interpretation of
various sections of Motor Vehicles Act shall be towards the fulfillment of these
objectives and not to block the compensation on non-sustainable grounds.
11. The case before this Court is not a case where there was no Route Permit
at all, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being plied without a route
permit.
5 MA 534/2014
12. Thus, the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that since at the time of
accident, the offending vehicle had no valid route permit, which came to be
renewed on 16.06.2011, as such the owner/insured was liable to pay the awarded
amount of compensation.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award merits to be
modified. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and it is held that
besides the awarded amount, the appellant shall also be entitled to an amount of
Rs.20,000/- being the amount incurred on transportation charges as well as the
expenses incurred on the attendant. Thus, in all the appellant shall be entitled to
receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,39,000/- along with pendentelite
and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future
income from the insurance company. Let the awarded amount be released in
favour of appellant after proper verification and identification in terms of the
conditions, if any, as contained in the impugned award.
14. Registry to send down the record of learned Tribunal along with a copy of
this judgment.
15. Disposed of along with connected MA(s), if any.
Jammu: (Tashi Rabstan)
.08.2021 Judge
(Anil Sanhotra)
ANIL SANHOTRA
2021.08.10 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
