National Insurance Company Ltd vs Raghunandan Sharma And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3050 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1434/2017

National Insurance Company Limited, 6, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur Through Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur Regional Office 3-4 Floor, Sun Tower, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur.

---Insurer

----Appellant Versus

1. Raghunandan Sharma S/o Late Sh. Purushottamji Sharma, By Caste Brahmin, Through Son And Amicus Curiae, R/o 15, Guru Ramdas Colony, Kumharon-Ka- Bhatta, Udaipur.

---Claimant/respondent

2. Mohd. Aarif S/o Mohd. Hamid, Caste Musalman, R/o 118, Rangeela Bhairu Chowk, Choradiwara, Surajpole, Udaipur.

---driver

3. Roop Singh S/o Val Singh Rajput, Caste Rajput, R/o Near Pani-Ki-Tanki, Talai-Ke-Pass, Udaipur Raj. At Present R/o Near Pani-Ki-Tanki Isval, Thana - Gogunda, District- Udaipur Raj.

---Owner

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1421/2017 Ragunandan Sharma S/o Sh. Late Sh. Purushaottam Ji Sharma, Aged about 71 years, R/o 15, Guru Ramdas Colony, Kumharo Ka Bhatta, Udaipur Raj. (Due To Remain In Coma Lost His Memory) Through His Son Shri Anurag Sharma S/o Shri Ragunandan Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o 15, Guru Ramdas Colony, Kumharo Ka Bhatta, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Appellant Versus

1. Mohd. Arif S/o Sh. Mohd. Hamid, By Caste Muslim, Aged 32 years, R/o 118, Rangeela Bheru Chauk, Chauradiwada, Surajpole Udaipur (Raj.).

--- Driver

2. Roop Singh S/o. Sh. Val Singh Rajput, R/o Near Water

(2 of 8) [CMA-1434/2017 a/w connected matter]

Tank, Near Talai, Udaipur, At Present R/o Near Water Tank, Iswal P.s. Godunda, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.)

-- Owner

3. National Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Branch Manager, Office At - 6, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur (Raj.)

--- Insurer

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

04/02/2021

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matters are being heard and disposed of finally.

The present appeals have been preferred against the

judgment & award dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur (Raj.) in Motor Accident

Claim Case No. 806/2015, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded

a sum of Rs.27,08,611/- with interest @ 8.50% per annum.

Brief facts of the case are that on 06.05.2015, at around

08:30 in the morning, appellant-Raghunandan Sharma while

standing in front of his house, was hit by a motor-cycle bearing

registration No.RJ27/MS-9606 and due to the accident he suffered

injuries. He was taken to the hospital where he undergone

treatment for the injuries suffered in this accident. In these

circumstances, the claim petition was preferred by the claimant

before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after framing

the issues and evaluating the evidence on record, awarded a sum

of Rs.27,08,611/-(Rupees: Twenty Seven Lacs Eight Thousand Six

(3 of 8) [CMA-1434/2017 a/w connected matter]

Hundred Eleven Only) to the claimant with an interest @ 8.5% per

annum. The amount of compensation was ordered to be paid by

the Insurance Company to the claimant. Aggrieved of the same,

the Insurance Company as well as claimant have preferred the

above appeals before this Court assailing the validity of the

judgment and award dated 28.02.2017.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently

argued that the Tribunal has committed an error while considering

the bills produced by the claimant as some of the bills are

duplicate and some bills have been issued by forging the same.

He emphasized upon the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para

numbers 17 to 23 showing that the Tribunal has not closely taken

into consideration the bills and awarded the amount against those

bills in a very causal manner. The amount awarded against those

bills is nothing but the same has been paid twice for one therapy.

Thus, the Tribunal has totally misread the evidence placed before

it and awarded a huge sum which the claimant is otherwise not

entitled.

Secondly, learned counsel submits that the rate of interest

awarded vide impugned awarded i.e. 8.5% is quite excessive and

the same was not prevailing at the time when the award was

passed and thus, on these two grounds, the learned counsel for

the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the amount

awarded by the Tribunal is required to be suitably modified and

reduced.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant has supported

the findings recorded by the Tribunal vide its judgment & award

dated 28.02.2017 and submitted that in view of the Medical

(4 of 8) [CMA-1434/2017 a/w connected matter]

Board's Certificate holding the claimant-respondent as 100%

disabled person and based on the age and income documents

produced, the Tribunal has rightly computed the amount in this

case. He further submits that whatever bills received from the

physiotherapist etc. who provided the treatment, the same were

placed before the Tribunal without there being any infirmity or

forgery. Thus, he submits that the computation done by the

Tribunal in the present case does not suffer from any infirmity.

However, in the appeal filed by the claimant -Raghunandan

Sharma, it is argued that since the appellant injured is a 100%

disabled person and bed-ridden, the Tribunal has not taken into

consideration the expenses incurred towards the future and

continuous treatment which is liable to be compensated in this

case. He further submits that since claimant- Raghunandan

Sharma is 100% bed-ridden, therefore, the services of one person

will always be required for helping him to maintain day-to-day

affairs. He, thus, prays that a reasonable amount towards the

expenses incurred for future treatment and the assistance to be

given by somebody may be directed to be awarded in this case.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar, gone

through the judgment and award dated 28.02.2017 as well as the

record of the case.

So far as the first argument is concerned, a pointed query is

raised by this Court to the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company for submitting the duplicate bills and thereby causing

forgery, if any, done in the present case, the learned counsel very

fairly submits that it appears that the number of bills shows that a

bill which is issued on one date, no other bill was issued in

(5 of 8) [CMA-1434/2017 a/w connected matter]

between and thereafter for the same patient the next number has

been issued, reflecting that there is some forgery or some wrong

method has been adopted by procuring the bills.

The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the bills

produced before it clearly reflects the entire chronology of the bills

and the purpose for which those bills were raised, has also been

discussed by the Tribunal. Having perused the bills in question,

this Court finds that neither the bills are duplicate nor there is any

infirmity in the order of their issuance, therefore, the assumption

of the learned counsel for the appellant is misdirected and

unfounded. The Tribunal has recorded the categoric finding with

respect to the payment done towards the expenses incurred for

physiotherapist and other medical treatments extended to the

claimant-appellant in this case and the findings recorded do not

suffer from any infirmity. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are

produced herewith for better appreciation of the facts :-

"17- izkFkhZ ds nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds QyLo:i izn"kZ 301 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ esa 100 izfr"kr LFkkbZ fu;ksX;rk dkfjr gksuk crk;k gSA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls MkW- euh'k "kekZ us crkSj ,-M- dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds flj es vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k ejht csgks"k jgk Fkk vkSj mlds ,d ls vf/kd gsejsftd daV;wtu nksuksa rjQ Qz.Vy VsEijks vkWDlhihVy vkSj feM cszu ds Mksjly vkWlisDV esa mifLFkr Fks vkSj ikWUl esa ck;ha rjQ rFkk ck;ha lsjsczy esa mifLFkr Fks vkSj ejht dh nkfguh rjQ efLr'd esa lc M;wjy g;weksVksek Fkk vkSj mlds ck;s vkWfDlihVy fjtu esa vfLFkHkax Fkk ftlls ejht cksyus esa vleFkZ Fkk vkSj "kjhj dk iwjk ck;ka Hkkx detksj Fkk vkSj CykWMj vkSj ckmy ij fu;a=.k ugha FkkA ftjg essa bl xokg us ejht dh QaD"kuy fMlsfcfyVh 100 izfr"kr gh gksuk dFku fd;k gS D;ksafd ijh{k.k ds le; izkFkhZ dks cksyus o pyus esa vleFkZ gksuk dFku fd;k gS rFkk viuk nSfud dk;Z djus ds fy;s Hkh lgk;d dh vko";drk gksuk dFku fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds dkfjr mDr flj dh xEHkhj pksVksa rFkk orZeku esa izkFkhZ dh fLFkfr o izkFkhZ dh dk;Z dh izd`fr dks ns[krs gq;s izkFkhZ dh dk;Z {kerk esa fuf"pr :i deh vkus dh laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks Hkfo'; esa vftZr gksus okyh vk; gsrq "kr&izfr"kr vk; dk uqdlku gksuk ekus tkus ;ksX;

gSA QyLo:i izkFkhZ dh okf'kZd vk; 2]67]836 :i;s dks 05 dk xq.kkad fn;k tkdj mldk 100 izfr"kr dqy 13]39]180 :i;s Hkfo'; esa gksus okyh vk; ,oa miktZu "kfDr dh gkfu ds :i esa fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

(6 of 8) [CMA-1434/2017 a/w connected matter]

18- pksV izfrosnu izn"kZ 4 esa izkFkhZ dks cksyus o cSBus esa vleFkZ gksuk rFkk uklksxsfLVªd V;wc yxh gksuk rFkk dsFksjkbZTM gksuk rFkk izkFkhZ ds yykV ij pksV dk fu"kky gksuk of.kZr fd;k gqvk gSA izn"kZ 14 czsu dh ,u-lh-lh-Vh- ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dh cka;h vkWfDlihVy cksu esa vfLFkHkax gksuk] ck;ha lsjscsyj gsfEilQs;j esa ,DLVª M;wjy gsekVksek gksuk] lc&vkdZuksbZM o lc M;wjy gsekVksek gksuk of.kZr fd;k gqvk gSA izn"kZ 16 ,e-vkj-vkbZ- czsu ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ ds Qz.Vy] VsEiksjks vkWfDlihVy Mksjly vkWliSDV vkSj feM czsu] ikWUl esa ck;ha lkbZM eYVhiy gseksjsftd daV;wt gksuk] nk;ha gksyksgsfelQsfjd fjtu esa lc M;wjy gsekVksek mifLFkr gksuk of.kZr fd;k gqvk gSA vr% izkFkhZ dks mDr pksVksa ds dkj.k "kkjhfjd o ekufld ihM+k gksuk rFkk thou dh lq[k lqfo/kkvksa dh gkfu gksuk LokHkkfod gSA gkykafd bldk ewY;kadu :i;ksa esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk] ysfdu fQj Hkh izkFkhZ dh nq?kZVuk ds le; ls ysdj orZeku fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s izkFkhZ dks bl gsrq 1]50]000 :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ fnyk;k tkuk mfpr gSA

19- izkFkhZ ds dkfjr vfLFkHkax o vU; pksVksa ds bZykt ij gq;s O;; ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj izn"kZ 31 ls 182 rFkk 275 ls 279 rFkk 288 ls 292 bZykt] nokbZ;ksa] tkapksa ds fcy o jlhnsa is"k dh gSa ftuesa ,MokUl o buoksbl ds fcyksa dh jkf"k izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ewy fcyksa esa lfEefyr gksus ds dkj.k bUgsa nqckjk ugha tksM+k tk jgk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr "ks'k fcyksa dk ;ksx 3]54]875 :i;s gksrk gSA HkrhZ o bZykt ds nkSjku izkFkhZ ds bZykt] nokbZ;ksa tkpksa ij gq;s O;; ckcr~ gj fcy ysuk lgt laHko ugha gSA QyLo:i bl gsrq izkFkhZ dks 3]55]000 :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ fnyk;k tkuk mfpr gSA

20- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dh fQft;ksFksjsih ij gq;s O;; ds laca/k esa izn"kZ 230 ls 248] izn"kZ 256 o 257 fQft;ksFksjsih o iSjkykbZfll VªhVesaV ckcr~ fcy] jlhnsa o iphZ;k is"k dh gSa tks dqy 3]43]055 :i;s dh gSA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mDr fcyksa dks tkjh djus okys O;fDr;ksa dks viuh lk{; esa is"k ugha fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu izkFkhZ dh pksVksa o mlds dkfjr "krizfr"kr LFkkbZ fu"kDrrk ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dh fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s izkFkhZ ds fQft;ksFksjsih o iSjkbZfll VªhVesaV ij O;; gksus dh laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA QyLo:i bl gsrq izkFkhZ dks dqy 3]43]055 :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

21- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lihp ,.M fg;fjax Fksjsih ij gq;s O;; ds laca/k esa izn"kZ 280 ls 287 jlhnsa is"k dh gS ftudk dqy ;ksx 60]900 :i;s gSaA LFkkbZ fu"kDrrk izek.ki= o MkW- euh'k "kekZ ds c;ku ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks cksyus esa Hkh vleFkZ gksuk crk;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh Lihp ,.M fg;fjax Fksjsih ij O;; gksus dh laHkkouk ls Hkh badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk A QyLo:i bl gsrq izkFkhZ dks 60]900 :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

22- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k mldh uflZax ,oa ds;j Vsd ij gq;s O;; ds laca/k esa izn"kZ 226 ls 229 rFkk izn"kZ 259 ls 273 jlhnsa is"k dh gS tks dqy 3]58]200 :i;s dh gSA izkFkhZ ds nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k dkfjr "kr izfr"kr LFkkbZ fu"kDrrk rFkk izkFkhZ dh fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s mldh uflZax o ds;j gsrq ,d O;fDr dh vko";drk gksuk vkSj ml ij O;; gksus dh laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA QyLo:i izkFkhZ dks bl gsrq 3]58]200 :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

(7 of 8) [CMA-1434/2017 a/w connected matter]

23- izkFkhZ us nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds bZykt gsrq ,Ecqysal o bZykt gsrq ifjogu ij gq;s O;; ds laca/k esa izn"kZ 249 ftldh jlhn izn"kZ 170 gS] rFkk izn"kZ 250 ls 255 dqy 76]276 :i;s ds fcy o jlhnsa is"k dh gSA izkFkhZ dh pksVksa ds dkj.k mldh fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s mls bZykt gsrq fpfdRld dks fn[kkus ds fy;s tkus o vkus ij ,Ecqysal o vU; okgu ls ifjogu ij O;; gksuk LokHkkfod gSA QyLo:i bl gsrq izkFkhZ dks 76]276 :i;s crkSj {kfriwfrZ jkf"k fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA "

Thus, the finding on the first argument of the learned

counsel for the Insurance Company recorded by the Tribunal is not

required to be interfered with.

As far as, awarding the rate of interest on the compensation

amount @ 8.5% is concerned, this Court feels that the same is

slightly on the higher side and, therefore, the rate of interest on

the amount of compensation should be modified to @ 7.5%

instead of 8.5% given by the Tribunal.

Thus, the Civil Misc. Appeal of the Insurance Company is

partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal for the payment of

compensation to the tune of Rs.27,08,611/-(Rupees: Twenty

Seven Lacs Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eleven Only) is

maintained, however, the rate of interest shall be @ 7.5% from

the date of application. The entire amount shall be paid within a

period of eight weeks from today.

The amount already deposited by the appellant-Insurance

Company in view of the direction issued by this Court, on

25.07.2017 as well as the amount deposited in view of proviso to

Sections 173 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act shall also be

included.

As far as, the appeal filed by the claimant-appellant-

Raghunandan Sharma is concerned, it is an admitted position that

he is 100% disabled and bed-ridden person in view of the medical

documents and no amount has been awarded towards his future

(8 of 8) [CMA-1434/2017 a/w connected matter]

upkeep/treatment/day-to-day affairs. In support of his

contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Afnees(Unconscious),

represented through mother V/s Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd., Vadakara & Ors. Reported in 2017(2) ACTC

(SC) 1233 and Parminder Singh V/s New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2019(2) ACTC (SC) 715.

Therefore, this court feels that in the light of the above judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

should be the 'just compensation' in the present case to be

awarded to the claimant for his future treatment and for the

assistance to be provided by somebody to him to conduct day-to-

day affairs.

Thus, the civil misc. appeal of the applicant- Raghunandan

Sharma is allowed with a direction to the Insurance Company to

pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees: Five Lac Only), in

addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its

impugned order dated 28.02.2017 within a period of eight weeks

from today.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 158-159 SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)