National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mohd Anwar Bhat And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1047 j&K

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                          AT JAMMU


                                             MA No. 404/2013
                                             IA No. 1/2016



National Insurance Co. Ltd                       ... appellants


                   Through: - Mr. D.S.Chouhan Advocate

                   Vs.

Mohd Anwar Bhat and ors                             ...Respondent(s)
                Through: - Mr. Bari Abdullah Malik Advocate


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE



                             JUDGMENT

1 The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal

challenging award dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Ramban (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal')

whereby respondent No.1-claimant has been held entitled to receive

compensation in the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum.

2 The facts giving rise to filing of instant appeal are that on

18.05.2009, respondent No.1-claimant received serious injuries on

account of a road traffic accident involving vehicle bearing registration

No. JKD/7121 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its

driver, respondent No.3 herein. The accident took place near Battrey

Chesma on National Highway, Ramban which resulted into permanent

disability to respondent No.1-claimant, who filed a claim petition

before the Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner, driver and

insurer of the offending vehicle.

3 The Tribunal, after framing the issues and after trial of the case,

came to the conclusion that respondent No.1-claimant, on the basis of

the evidence on record, has succeeded in establishing that he has

suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25% to his forearm as a

result of the injuries which he sustained in the aforesaid accident.

4 Since the offending vehicle was covered by policy of insurance

issued by the appellant-Insurance company, the Tribunal, after

assessing the compensation to which respondent No.1-claimant was

entitled, directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay

compensation in the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest to

respondent No.1-claimant. It is this award which is under challenge in

this appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the case including the grounds of appeal and the impugned

award.

6 The primary ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company is that the injured-respondent No.1 was a

Government employee and, as such, even if he had suffered disability

to his forearm, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation

under the head 'loss of future income' in his favour as no such loss was

actually caused to respondent No.1- claimant due to the disability

suffered by him. The other ground that has been urged by learned

counsel for the appellant-Insurance company is that the disability

certificate issued in favour of respondent No.1-claimant has been

issued by a Doctor who did not actually treat him and, as such, the

Tribunal was not justified in relying upon the said certificate.

7 So far as the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant

is concerned, it is correct that the Tribunal, while assessing the

compensation in favour of respondent No.1-claimant has awarded a

sum of Rs.4,30,000/- under the head 'loss of future income'. It is also

an admitted fact that respondent No.1-claimant is a Government

employee. However, a careful analysis of the award reveals that the

Tribunal, in fact, has not awarded any compensation to the respondent

No.1-claimant on account of loss of future income. What the Tribunal

has awarded in favour of respondent No.1-claimant under this head is

the expenditure likely to be incurred by respondent No.1-claimant in

hiring the services of a driver as he has suffered 25% disability to his

forearm which would hamper him from driving a vehicle. According to

the Tribunal, respondent No.1-claimant being a Doctor is required to

travel to Hospital in his own car and because of the nature of disability

suffered by him, he would not able to drive his own car and would have

to hire the services of a driver. On this reasoning, it has been held that

the claimant is entitled to compensation equivalent to the expenditure

likely to be incurred in hiring the services of a driver.

8 The Tribunal, having regard to the age of respondent No.1-the

claimant, applied the multiplier of 12 and assessed the monthly

expenditure of hiring the services of a driver at Rs.3000/- and awarded

a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- on account of expenditure he may have to incur

in hiring the services of a driver. Thus, it is not a case where the

Tribunal has awarded compensation on account of loss of future

income in favour of respondent No.1 claimant who happens to be a

Government employee, but it is a case where respondent No.1-the

claimant has been awarded compensation equivalent to the expenditure

likely to be incurred in hiring the services of a driver. I do not find any

infirmity or illegality in the course adopted by the Tribunal while

awarding the aforesaid sum in favour of respondent No.1-the claimant.

9 The next contention that has been raised by learned counsel for

the appellant is that the Doctor, who has issued a disability certificate in

favour of the claimant, has not actually treated the claimant, as such, he

was not competent to issue the disability certificate in his favour. The

disability certificate has been issued by the Board of Doctors and as per

this certificate, respondent No.1-the claimant has suffered 25%

permanent disability to his forearm. One of the signatories to the

disability certificate is Dr. Farid Hussain, who has deposed about the

authenticity of the said certificate during trial of the case before the

Tribunal. The certificate in question has been issued by a duly

constituted Board of Doctors. Thus, merely because, none of the

members of the Board of Doctors did not actually treat the claimant for

the injuries which he received due to the accident, does not render the

certificate in question invalid. It is not the requirement of law that the

certificate of disability should be issued by the same doctor who has

actually treated the patient. A duly constituted Board of Doctors is

competent to grant a certificate in this regard. Even otherwise, the

appellant-Insurance Company has not brought to the notice of this court

any fact or material that would create any doubt about the authenticity

of the disability certificate. The argument of learned counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company is, therefore, bound to be rejected.

10 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal

as the impugned award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any

interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 07.09.2021 Sanjeev

Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No