United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Piyush Gupta

9Sl. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

AO No.06 of 2013 Hon 'ble Sh ar ad Ku m ar Sh ar m a, J.

Mr. K.K. Shah, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate, for the respondent.

This appeal from order has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 19.10.2012, as it was rendered in MACP No.07 of 2009, "Piyush Gupta Vs. National Insurance Company Limited" by virtue of which, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had awarded an amount of Rs.64,500/- to the claimants/respondents.

By virtue of the impugned award, as it has been rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the recoverable rights has been reserved in favour of the Insurance Company, and the amount, thus, directed to be remitted to the claimants had been permitted to be recovered by the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the owner of the vehicle has not filed any independent appeal from order.

This appeal from order was admitted on

03.01.2013, and ever since then it is pending and according to the cause list now the matter is fixed for 22.04.2024. The claimants/respondents have filed an urgency application praying for an early listing of the matter.

Learned counsels for the parties have consented upon that this appeal from order can be preponed and heard today itself, and adjudicate it finally qua the issue involved pertaining to the grant of the recoverable rights to the Insurance Company.

The precise facts, which involved consideration are that on 22.11.2008, the accident is said to have occurred, which has caused certain injuries to the claimants when they were travelling on the motor cycle bearing Registration No.UP25B4707, and it was alleged that the accident has chanced because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. the Indica Car bearing Registration No.UK12 9635.

It was contended by the claimants that it was exclusively on account of the rash and negligent driving, that the accident has chanced due to which they have suffered injuries, and they were forthwith taken up to the Government Medical Hospital for their treatment, and after the initial treatment they were referred to the specialized hospital for treatment and consequently they were admitted in Trauma and Infertility Hospital, Muzzafarnagar.

In the proceedings which were thus held before the claim petition in MACP No.07 of 2009, "Piyush Gupta Vs. National Insurance Company Limited" the claimant contended that after the surgery being conducted upon him, the plates were placed by the Doctors after the surgery, thus he contended that he had invested about Rupees Seventeen Lakh, and he has claimed the said amount along with the interest payable on it @ 18% interest.

The matter was contested before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and they came up with a case that rather the accident has chanced was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.UP25B 4707, and, thus, the insurance company of the offending car, would not be responsible for remittance of any compensation as claimed by the claimants in the proceedings before the court below. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal have framed the following issues:-

(1) D;k fnukad 27-11-2008 dks dksV}kj&nqxMMk ekxZ ij ih0MCyw0Mhti dkyksuh ds lehi tc ;kph ih;w'k xqIrk viuh eksVj lkbZfdy ls vk jgk Fkk rks bf.Mdk dkj la[;k ;wds&12&9635 ds pkyd }kjk rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, eksVj lkbZfdy ij Vddj ekjh x;h ftlls ih;w'k xqIrk dks xEHkhj pksaVs vk;h vkSj og ?kk;y gks x;k \

(2) D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk Loa; eksVj lkbZfdy pkyd dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k ?kfVr gqbZ\

(3) D;k mDr nq?kZVuk ds le; iz"uxr okguksa ds lEkLr dkxtkr e; pkyd ykbZlsal oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Fkh rFkk okgu ijfeV o ckhek ikWfylh fd "krksZ ds vuq:i lapkfyr gks jgk Fkk\

(4) D;k ;kph dksbZ izfrdj ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;nh gka rks fdruk o fdl i{k ls\

The Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence, and particularly, the issue with which we would be concerned at this stage because the question of recoverable rights being granted to the Insurance Company, it is not a question, which has been subjected to challenge by the owner of the vehicle. Hence, no prejudice, as such, is being caused to the Insurance Company, owing to the determination of the quantified compensation as decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue no.4, before it.

While deciding the issue no.4, was decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence with regards to the factum of expenditure incurred during the course of the treatment, which was taken by the claimant, had diligently considered the evidence, which has been recorded in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment i.e. the documents pertaining to the charges of medical treatment as deposited by the claimant/respondent, as well as, the statement of the PW 2, which was reported to substantiate the contents of the bill of the medical treatment as invested by the claimant in his treatment, along with the document paper no.39ga13 to 39ga16.

Consequently, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had come up with the conclusion that so far as the evidence, which was placed by the claimant, they were able to substantiate only an expenditure which is shown to have been incurred was to the tune of Rs.49,500/-, and for the medical bills towards the medicines, the amount was determined to be Rs.5,000/-, and for the mental agony the amount was determined as to be Rs.10,000/-, and accordingly a total amount of Rs.64,500/- was shown to be due to be paid to the claimant/respondent.

Owing to the observations made in the impugned award dated 19.10.2012, where the said amount was determined to be made payable by the Insurance Company, amounting to Rs.64,500/- with the interest payable on it @ 9%, since the liability has been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle holding thereof, that rather the accident has chanced due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, and particularly, when the owner of the offending vehicle has not filed any appeal from order questioning the issue of grant of recoverable rights to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, as such, at this stage, cannot be said to be prejudiced by the impugned judgment dated

19.10.2012, granting the recoverable rights to the Insurance Company.

Thus, the claim petition and the modalities adopted by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while determining and quantifying the compensation of Rs.64,500/- qua the present appeal from order preferred by the insurance company do not suffer from any apparent error because the right of recovery has already been reserved for the present appellant. Thus, the appeal from order lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

However, the connected AO No.55 of 2013, as preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation that is being de-linked to be considered by an appropriate court on the date already fixed by the coordinate Bench.

( Sh ar ad Ku m ar Sh ar m a, J.)

04.12.2023 NR