Uttarakhand High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Indu Gulati And Others on 10 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
AO No. 553 of 2011
National Insurance Company Ltd.
..................Appellant
Mr. Prabhat Pande, Adv. for the appellant
-versus-
Smt. Indu Gulati and others
.........Respondents
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the respondents
With
AO No. 52 of 2012
Nagar Nigam Haridwar
..................Appellant
Mr. Lalit Miglani, Adv. for the appellant
-versus-
National Insurance Company Ltd. and others.
.........Respondents
Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for the respondents
With
AO No. 90 of 2012
Smt. Indu Gulati
..................Appellant
Mr. Tapan Singh, Adv. for the appellant
Page 1 of 5
-versus-
Sri Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others
.........Respondents
Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for the respondents
Sri S.K.Mishra, J.
Judgment
10.11.2021
1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Pande, Advocate for National
Insurance Company Ltd., Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate
for the private respondents and Mr. Lalit Miglani,
Advocate for Nagar Nigam, Haridwar.
2. This judgment arises out of the three separate appeals
filed by the claimant, owner of the vehicle i.e. Nagar
Nigam, Haridwar and National Insurance Company,
challenging the award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 08 of
2008, wherein as per the award dated 22.10.2011, a
compensation of Rs. 8,75,377/- has been awarded.
3. The counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as
per the present law, the Insurance Company has a right
of recovery and in this case, the learned Tribunal has
already granted the right of recovery to the Insurance
Company. Hence, the Insurance Company does not
have any serious grievance in award impugned.
4. The learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar
submits that the accident did not take place as stated
by the claimant rather the JCB was standing on the
road and the deceased along with his brother driving
the scooter rash and negligently hit the JCB and got
serious injuries as a result of this he died.
5. Hence, the death of the deceased has not been caused
by any rash and negligent driving of JCB driver or any
action of the employees of the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar.
Therefore, he contends that the award of compensation
and a direction to pay the same to the claimant is
illegal.
6. However, he admits that such plea has not been taken
in the written statement filed by the Nagar Nigam,
Haridwar and no evidences, either oral or documentary,
were led on behalf of the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent in the
connected appeal filed by the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar
submits that there are material available on record to
show that the stepney of the scooter, which was
attached to the rear side of the scooter, was damaged
in the accident, which indicates that the deceased's
scooter was dashed from the back side by the JCB.
8. Moreover, he further contends that brother of the
deceased was examined and various relevant
documents such as copy of the FIR, copy of the charge
sheet and the post mortem report were exhibited,
which prima facie shows by preponderance of evidence
that deceased died because of the rash and negligent
action of the driver.
9. In that view of the matter, the Court comes to the
conclusion that the appeals preferred by the Insurance
Company and the Nagar Nigam, Haridwar being devoid
of merit have to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeals
filed by the Insurance Company and the owner of the
vehicle i.e. Nagar Nigam, Haridwar are dismissed.
10. As far as, the compensation is concerned. The learned
counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the
amount of non-pecuniary damages is very less in this
case. This Court comes to the conclusion that the
claimants are entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate,
the wife of the deceased is claimant and she became
widow at a young age. She is entitled for a sum of Rs.
25,000/- for loss of consortium; she is also entitled for
a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The
total amount of non-pecuniary damages comes to Rs.
50,000/-.
11. Hence, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in
part increasing the amount of compensation by Rs.
50,000/-. It is submitted that the entire money has
been deposited. Hence, the Insurance Company is
directed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- along
with simple interest @ 6% from the date of filing of
appeal, within two months from today. The Insurance
Company also has the right of the recovery of this
additional amount along with interest to be paid to the
claimant from the owner of the vehicle.
12. With such observations, all the appeals are disposed of.
The amount deposited before the Tribunal be released
in favour of the claimant, as per the proportion fixed by
the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Statutory
deposit of Rs. 25,000/- of both the appellants i.e. the
Insurance Company and Nagar Nigam, Haridwar, be
refunded to them along with accrued interest on proof
of deposits of the additional amount before the Tribunal
by the Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle..
13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(S.K.Mishra)
Judge
A/-
