Uttarakhand High Court
AO/561/2017 on 19 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
A.O. No. 561 of 2017
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. Rakshit Srivastava proxy counsel for Mr. Ramji
Srivastava, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate (through Video
Conferencing) assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, counsel for the
Insurance Company/respondent no.3.
2. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant
against the judgement and award dated 10.08.2017 passed by
M.A.C.T./2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun in
M.A.C.P. No. 02 of 2012, whereby the compensation of
`10,000/- has been passed in favour of the appellant/claimant.
3. Counsel for the appellant would submit that there were
medical bills of more than `3,17,000/- which incurred by the
appellant/claimant for his treatment and those were also
placed on record before the Tribunal, but, the Tribunal has
utterly failed to appreciate the same; that, there was
amputation of the leg of the appellant/claimant and that fact
was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
He would further submit that if at all no evidence was
placed before the Tribunal because of lack of knowledge and
inexperience of the counsel, it is the bounden duty of the
Tribunal under the law to be proactive when the
appellant/claimant was before it with the averments that her
leg was amputated and this was also stated in her testimony,
since it is a beneficent legislation.
He would further submit that even the Insurance
Company was under duty, caste upon it under the law, to
verify the bills and place it before the Tribunal with the
proposal for compensation. In support of his contention, he
referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company
(2010) 2 SCC 607" and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the case of "Rajesh Tyagi & Others Vs. Jaibir
Singh & Others (2009) SCC Online Del 1704", wherein both
the Courts have caste upon the duties upon the Insurance
Company and the police authorities to be proactive in the
situation of any accident and would submit that the police and
insurance company had utterly failed to discharge their
respective duties.
4. Senior counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent
no.3 would submit that in the later part of the judgment/award
Tribunal has unequivocally observed that the bills placed on
record were photocopies and those were not duly proved and
in the absence of the evidences to prove the documents, the
award of compensation under challenge is correct and the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. In view of the Court, the issues involved in the appeal
need deliberation.
6. Admit the appeal.
7. Lower Court Record be summoned.
8. Registry is directed to prepare paper book as and when
the record is received and supply the same to the counsel for
the parties as per Rules.
9. Put up on 14.02.2024.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
19.10.2023
Mamta
