United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gopal Dass And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 220 j&K

       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        ATJAMMU

                                                Reserved on   07.02.2022
                                                Pronounced on 18.02.2022

                                                     MA No. 364/2013(O&M)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                                       .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)


                                 Through :- Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate & Ms.
                                            Damini Singh Chauhan, Adv.

                           v/s
Gopal Dass and others                                           .....Respondent(s)


                                 Through :- Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta, Adv.for R-1

Coram:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICERAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

                                    JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 09.05.2013 passed by

the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred

as the Tribunal) in file No. 09/C.P., titled, "Gopal Dass vs. Sukhvinder

Singh and ors." by virtue of which an amount of 1,20,400/- has been

awarded as compensation in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimant

along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till its realization.

2. The present appeal has been filed on the following twin grounds:

(a) That the appellant is not liable to indemnify the insured as the

vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant-company.

(b) that an amount of Rs. 25000/- awarded on account of medical

expenses is arbitrary and unjustified, as the respondent No.

1/claimant has placed on record bills amounting to Rs. 1141/-only.

3. Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant laid much stress

that the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant and that

there was no documentary evidence with regard to the grant of

compensation on account of medical expenses.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent No. 1/claimant argued that the vehicle was insured

with the appellant as the engine number and chasis number of the

vehicle in question finds mentioned in the cover note as well as in the

policy and merely wrong description of the registration of the vehicle

would not absolve the insurance company of its liability to satisfy the

award and further that the compensation awarded to the respondent is

not exorbitant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the

claimant/respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition for grant of

compensation in a vehicular accident that occurred on 05.12.2008 at

Magar Khad, Bridge (NHW) when the offending truck bearing

registration No. PB11AH-8533 that was coming from Lakhanpur to

Jammu, hit the horse cart that was being driven by the respondent

No.1/claimant. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were set ex parte by the

Tribunal and the appellant -respondent No. 1 filed detailed response

and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. "Whether the accident took place on 05.12.2008 at Magar Khad

Bridge, NHW due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle bearing registration No. PB11AH-8533 by respondent No. 1

as a result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries? OPP

2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is

entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP

3. Whether the offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent

No. 3-Insurance Company at the time of accident? OPR-3

4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid

and effective driving licence at the time of accident and it was being

plied in violation of the terms and conditions of RC, RP and FC and

as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any

compensation? OPR

5. Relief."

7. The claimant/respondent No. 1 examined himself and also Mulkh Raj

and Dr. I. K. Wangnoo in support of his claim, whereas the appellant

examined Kaka Ram and Harjeet Singh in support of its case. After

closure of the evidence, the learned Tribunal vide award dated

09.5.2013 awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,20,400/- in

favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant-

Insurance Company to satisfy the award.

8. The first contention raised by the appellant is that the vehicle in

question was not insured with the appellant and in order to substantiate

the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant laid stress upon

the cover note as also the statements of RWs-Kaka Ram and Harjeet

Singh as witnesses. A perusal of the cover note and policy reveals that

the engine number and chasis number have been mentioned as 110128

and 105832 respectively. The perusal of statement of RW-Kaka Ram

reveals that the cover note attached to the file pertains to the vehicle

bearing No. DL16B-1236 and at the same time he admitted that the

owner, in whose favour insurance certificate has been issued, is the

same in both the cases. A perusal of the cover note as well as the

policy reveal that the name and address of the insured has been

mentioned as Panwarjit Singh S/o Sardara Singh R/o 6062/1, Choti

Ghas Mandi, Patila and further from the statement of the said witness, it

reveals that owner of the said truck is Kamaljit. A perusal of the claim

petition reveals that Panwarjeet Singh has been arrayed as respondent

No. 2 and merely because the registration number of the vehicle has

been mentioned as DL16B-1236, would not absolve the insurance

company of its liability to satisfy the award, particularly when the

appellant insurance company has not led any evidence with regard to

the fact that vehicle bearing No. DL16B-1236 was having the engine

number and chasis number as mentioned above and also the Insurance

Company has not brought on record any documentary evidence on

record to demonstrate that the vehicle bearing No. PB11AH-8533 was

not having engine number and chasis number as mentioned above.

Rather the Insurance Company has examined Harjit Singh in support of

its claim, who has categorically stated that the truck bearing registration

No. PB11AH-8533 is having the engine number and chasis number as

110128 and 105302 respectively. He has further stated that prior to the

registration of this vehicle by DTO Patiala, it bore the number DL16B-

1236 and the year of the manufacture is 1996. So, merely mentioning

of the registration number as DL16B-1236 in the cover note as well the

policy would not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to

satisfy the award with regard to the accident caused by the vehicle

bearing engine No.110128 and chasis No. 105302, as such, this

contention of the appellant is rejected.

9. The other contention of the appellant is with regard to the quantum of

the compensation awarded as medical expenses. The learned Tribunal

has taken into consideration the medical bills amounting to Rs. 1141/-

placed on record by the claimant/respondent No. 1 and at the same

time, the learned Tribunal has observed that in view of the injuries

suffered by the claimant, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is reasonable

assessment of the expenses incurred by respondent No. 1/claimant on

the medicines. In view of the injuries suffered by the

claimant/respondent No.1, Rs. 25,000/- as medical expenses cannot be

considered as exorbitant and the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed

the same.

10. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is,

accordingly, dismissed. The amount of compensation, if not released be

released in favour of the claimant after due verification strictly in

accordance with the impugned award.

11. The record of the Tribunal be sent back.

(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge JAMMU 18.02.2022 Karam Chand

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