Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Naveen And Ors on 15 December, 2022
FAO -1542 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1) FAO -1542 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
...
United India Insurance Company Limited
................Appellant
vs.
Naveen and others
.................Respondents
2) FAO -312 of 2016 (O&M)
...
Naveen
................Appellant
vs.
Yusuf and others
.................Respondents
3) FAO -1927 of 2016 (O&M)
...
United India Insurance Company Limited
................Appellant
vs.
Anand Yadav and others
.................Respondents
4) FAO -311 of 2016 (O&M)
...
Anand Yadav
................Appellant
vs.
Yusuf and others
.................Respondents
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2022 21:03:29 :::
FAO -1542 of 2016 -2-
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. Rajnish Malhotra, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance company
in FAO 1542-2016 and FAO 1927-2016 and
for respondent No.3 in FAO 312-2016 and FAO 311-2016 .
Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for
Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellant
in FAO-312 and FAO 311-2016 and
for respondent No.1 in FAO 1542-2016 and FAO 1927-2016
...
H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral)
By this judgment, I propose to dispose of four appeals
bearing FAO No. 1542 of 2016 titled as 'United India Insurance
Company Limited versus Naveen and others'; FAO No. 312 of 2016
titled as 'Naveen versus Yusuf and others'; FAO No. 1927 of 2016
titled as 'United India Insurance Company Limited versus Anand
Yadav and others'; FAO No. 311 of 2016 titled as 'Anand Yadav
versus Yusuf and others', arising out of the same award passed by
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 24.4.2013 at about
11.00 P.M in the area of 5/6 kilas ahead of village Garhi towards
Hansi while Naveen, aged about 19 years, resident of Village
Rampura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar alongwith his friend Anand
was coming from Village Badala to village Rampura on a motorcycle
bearing registration No. HR-16J-5826 being driven by Naveen, a
Jeep bearing registration No. UP-25F-8906, being driven in a rash
and negligent manner by respondent No. 1 Yusuf came from opposite
2 of 8
side and struck the motorcycle being driven by Naveen. Resultantly
both the riders fell down and suffered multiple injuries. Both the
injured - Naveen and Anand Yadav, filed separate claim petitions
against the respondents- Yusuf - driver, Ikram - Owner and United
India Insurance Company Limited, Hisar - insurer of Jeep bearing
registration No. UP-25F-8906, craving for grant of compensation.
After contest by the respondents, both the claim petitions
were disposed of vide single Award passed by Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Hisar on 28.10.2015. A compensation of
Rs.14,03,620/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% was awarded to
appellant claimant Anand Yadav whereas compensation of
Rs.3,56,946/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was
awarded to Naveen payable by respondent No.3 - United India
Insurance Company Limited, first. However, recovery rights were
granted to the Insurance Company for the reason that respondent
No.1 was authorized to drive motorcycle/LMV. However, he was
driving Jeep by attaching a Thrasher and said Thrasher hit the
motorcycle which was found to be in violation of terms and
conditions of the Insurance Policy. Reliance was placed upon
judgment Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Nanjappan etc.
2004(13) SCC 224 by the Apex Court that when there is violation of
terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance
Company is held to be not liable but such company has to pay the
awarded compensation and can recover the same from insured by
initiating proceedings before the Executing Court. With regard to
3 of 8
contention made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that
it should have been absolved of liability to pay compensation in
totality instead of issuing a direction to it to pay the compensation
amount to the claimant at first instance and then to recover it from the
insured I do not find myself in agreement with learned counsel for
the appellant on that point since the Tribunal in para No. 49 of the
Award has dealt with that aspect in detail and has relied upon
judgment by the Apex Court in Nanjappan's case (Supra) in that
regard.
Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation
awarded to him by the Tribunal claimant Naveen has approached this
Court by way of filing appeal bearing FAO-312-2016, seeking
enhancement of compensation, whereas the Insurance Company
being of the view that compensation awarded to Naveen is on the
higher side and on account of violation of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy it should have been totally absolved of liability to
pay compensation has also filed a separate appeal bearing FAO 1542-
2016, notice of which was given to respondents in both the appeals
who have put in appearance through counsel.
Similarly, the other injured Anand Yadav, has filed an appeal,
bearing FAO 311-2016 seeking enhancement of compensation,
whereas respondent-Insurance company has also come up with a
separate appeal bearing FAO 1927-2016, claiming recovery rights
from the insured and also seeking reduction of compensation.
4 of 8
Firstly, taking up the appeal filed by appellant - Anand
Yadav, seeking enhancement of compensation, as well as appeal filed
by the Insurance company, regarding reduction in compensation
payable to him. Appellant -Anand Yadav had suffered multiple
injuries in a roadside accident resultantly his right lower limb had to
be amputated which caused permanent disability to the extent of
75% as per certificate Ex.P1. The Tribunal considering the minimum
wages fixed by State Government at relevant time had awarded
compensation of Rs.9,72,000/- on account of earning capability of
petitioner having got diminished.
In my view considering the age of the deceased the nature
and extent of disability and other facts and circumstances this amount
is inadequate and requires enhancement and the same is enhanced to
Rs.11,50,000/-.
As far as medical expenses are concerned considering the
facts brought on file by the claimant a sum of Rs.3,96,620/- has been
granted under that Head. The Tribunal has not taken into
consideration the fact that the claimant injured may have to get the
artificial leg to facilitate his moments and further future medical
expenses have not been granted. Considering those aspects and the
medical expenses already incurred, a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- is granted
towards future medical expenses and an addition of Rs.55,000/- is
made towards the cost of artificial leg which the claimant may have
to bear. The compensation awarded under the Head special diet to the
tune of Rs.5,000/- and on account of transportation is on very lower
side. Those are enhanced to Rs.32,000/- each. Similarly under the
5 of 8
Head of compensation for pain and suffering only small amount of
Rs.25,000/- has been awarded. However, considering the nature and
extent of injuries suffered by the claimant resulting in his permanent
disablement and that he had to undergo surgeries for five times, the
amount needs to be enhanced. The same is increased to Rs.1 lakh.
The Tribunal has failed to take into view the fact that the claimant at
the time of accident was teenager and on account of amputation of
his right limb, his marriage prospects has been adversely effected and
he needs to be compensated in that regard. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.5 lakh is awarded to him.
Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the claimant to
the tune of Rs.14,03,620/- is enhanced to Rs.25 lakhs payable by all
the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5%
from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. The
other terms and conditions shall remain the same as directed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar, in the original award.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by Anand Yadav i.e. FAO 311-
2016 is allowed.
As far as, the appeal filed by the Insurance company, is
concerned, I find that no reduction in the compensation is called for
since the Tribunal on proper analysis of evidence and correct
interpretation of law has arrived at the compensation awarded under
different Heads. It has to be taken into view that the claimant had
suffered crush injury on right leg with fracture to pelvis and his right
leg had been amputated below knee. He had to undergo surgeries
6 of 8
repeatedly. Therefore, the compensation awarded is certainly not on
high side rather it appears to be some what on lower side. Thus no
ground is made out for reducing the compensation. Reliance was
placed upon judgment in Nanjappan's case (Supra) as detailed
above.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the
Insurance company. Therefore FAO 1927-2016 stands dismissed
accordingly.
Now coming to the appeal filed by appellant - Naveen
seeking enhancement of compensation, as well as appeal filed by the
respondent - Insurance company in his case, during the course of
proceedings of the appeal before this Court claimant Naveen has filed
an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional
evidence regarding his medical treatment after decision of claim
petition and to prove his disability certificate mentioning permanent
disability to the extent of 24% due to shortening of leg by 2 - 1⁄2
inches. Though application is being opposed by the respondents in
the appeal but I find that those documents are necessary to be taken
into consideration for deciding the entitlement of the claimant for
compensation. To prove the disability certificate the claimant shall
have to call the doctor who had examined him and then issue a
medical certificate and for proving the medical bills to call some
official from the shop of Chemist to prove such bills. In that way
evidence is required to be adduced for proof of the documents and
then in rebuttal the respondents may have to be granted an
7 of 8
opportunity to lead evidence, if they so desire. This can be only done
by the Tribunal in a proper and effective manner.
Therefore, the appeal filed by appellant claimant Naveen
bearing FAO No. 312 of 2016 and consequent appeal FAO No. 1542
of 2016 are disposed of. Both the cases are remanded to Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, for the limited purpose of granting
opportunity to the claimant to lead evidence to prove disability
certificate and the medical bills and thereafter to afford reasonable
opportunity to the respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal, if they so
desired. However, since findings on other issues are kept intact the
Tribunal may not go into the same again. The parties through counsel
are directed to appear before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Hisar on 9.1.2023. The Tribunal shall then fix a date for recording
evidence of claimant.
( H.S. Madaan )
15.12.2022 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
8 of 8
