Serial No. 07
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case:- MA No. 71/2010
IA No. 69/2015
c/w
CCROS No. 17/2010
IA No. 1/2015
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office- Appellant(s)
…..
III, Last More, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu acting
through its Assistant Divisional Manager,
Sh. S. N. Koul, Age 56 years.
Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Advocate.
Vs
1. Bhagat Singh Bhatia, S/o Late Sh. Than
.…. Respondent(s)
Chand Bhatia, R/o H. No. 71, Shastri Nagar,
Jammu.
2. Gurmeet Singh Sudan, S/o Sh. Dayal Singh
Sudan, R/o Rani Bagh, Opp. Air Port, Air
Port Road, Jammu. (Driver of Auto
Rickshaw No. JK02E-2348).
3. Sanjeev Kohli, S/o Sh. Bishamber Dass, C/o
Choudhary Chamb Pvt. Ltd., Nehru Market,
Jammu. (Owner of Auto Rickshaw No.
JK02E-2348).
Through: Mr. R. K. Bhatia, Advocate.
Coram: RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
ORDER
(30.04.2024)
1.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jammu came to entertain
a claim petition on file No. 60/Claim filed by the respondent No. 1-Bhagat
Singh Bhatia (who is now deceased) on account of physical disability suffered
by him as a result of motor vehicle accident which took place on 18.12.2004
when he came to be hit by offending vehicle of Auto Rickshaw No. JK02E-
2348. The Auto Rickshaw above numbered was owned by the respondent No. 3-
2
MA No. 71/2010
Sanjeev Kohli herein and driven by the respondent No. 2-Gurmeet Singh Sudan
herein.
2.
The offending vehicle was carrying an insurance cover issued by the
appellant herein i.e. National Insurance Company. The injury left the respondent
No. 1 to suffer hip replacement and the medical treatment availed by him was
from Dr. Hardas Singh Sandhu Hospital Amritsar lasting from 19.12.2004 to
25.12.2004 after he was shifted from the Government Medical College, Jammu
on 18.12.2004 having not received due medical attention from the Government
Medical College, Jammu.
3.
The respondents No. 2 & 3 as being the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle did not join the claim petition to contest the same, as such, it was only
the appellant as insurer which came to contest the claim petition from every
aspect.
4.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jammu came to hold that
the respondent No. 1 was a victim of rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by the respondent No. 2 and that the offending vehicle was of duly
insured by the respondent No. 3 from the appellant-Insurance Company.
5.
With respect to the quantum of compensation, the Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal (MACT), Jammu came to reckon the respondent No. 1 making a
monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- in his occupation as Registered Medical
Practitioner (RMP), although, no such proof was tendered on record as against
the claim of the respondent No. 1 that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.
3
MA No. 71/2010
The respondent No. 1 permanent physical disability was medically assessed to
’s
be 28%.
6.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jammu came to compute
the annual loss of income of the petitioner at Rs. 1680/- per month and which on
annually basis came to be Rs. 20160/- with respect to which applying multiplier
of 5 given the age of the respondent No. 1 to be 62 years, the compensation of
amount of Rs. 1,00,800/- came to be awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1.
7.
In addition to said compensation, on account of pain and suffering, the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jammu came to grant compensation
of Rs. 56,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1 and on account of loss of
amenities of life, the respondent No. 1 came to be awarded an amount of Rs.
56,000/- thereby totalling the compensation payable in favour of the respondent
No. 1 to be Rs. 4,22,800/- to be satisfied by the appellant-Insurance Company as
being the insurer of the offending vehicle and the compensation was to be
payable @ 7.5% per annum minus future loss of income from the date of filing
of the claim petition till realization.
8.
The claim petition was filed on 27.04.2005 and came to be decided by the
award dated 23.10.2009.
9.
Against this award, the appellant-Insurance Company has come up with
the challenge through the medium of the present appeal, during the pendency of
which, the respondent No. 1 came to demise thereby bringing on record his legal
4
MA No. 71/2010
representatives namely his widow-Jatinder Kour and two sons Manmohan Singh
and Gurmeet Singh in term of order dated 27.11.2021.
10.
In the memo of appeal, the appellant has taken an exception to the grant
of compensation in favour of the respondent No. 1 firstly on the ground that the
monthly income of the respondent No. 1 was taken by the Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal (MACT), Jammu without any basis in relation to the nature of
the occupation being pursued by the respondent No. 1 and that the monthly
income of the respondent No. 1 ought not to have been taking more than Rs.
3,000/- per month.
11.
The appellant has also joined issues with respect to the assessment of the
physical disability of the respondent No. 1 by reference to the fact that the
medical evidence suggested that the hip replacement of the respondent No. 1
and only restricted effect on his daily routine of life and, as such, did not hamper
him from pursuing normal way of life including pursuing his occupation.
12.
As per learned counsel for the appellant, the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (MACT), Jammu had erred on each and every aspect in the matter of
assessment of compensation payable in favour of the respondent No. 1 and even
the rate of interest of 7.5% per annum granted by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Jammu was not in sync with the rate of interest at the relevant point of
time which used to be 6% per annum.
13.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no
perversity in the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT),
5
MA No. 71/2010
Jammu in assessing the monthly income of the respondent No. 1 to be Rs.
6,000/- which at the relevant of point of time would come to be Rs. 200/- per
day wage of a person and the respondent No. 1 being an able-bodied person
being 62 years of age having competence to earn Rs. 200/- per day for vocation
of life in whatever he may have been engaging himself with or without any
proof in the context of being a registered medical practitioner would not mean to
belittle his livelihood.
14.
Therefore, for the learned counsel for the appellant to submit that the
income of the respondent No. 1 ought to have been computed @ Rs. 3,000/- per
month would be to say that his daily income ought to have been Rs. 100/- per
day at the relevant point of time when the respondent No. 1 came to suffer
accident. Obviously, the respondent No. 1 was having wife and two sons to look
after and that means that Rs. 100/- per day would not have been sufficient for
him to take care of his own person as well as family of three being his wife and
two sons.
15.
Insofar as, grant of compensation on account of medical expenses is
concerned, the very fact that for almost 15 days, the respondent No. 1 remained
hospitalized in a private hospital in Amritsar with his entire family engaged with
him providing to the best of their capability and best medical treatment to the
respondent No. 1, as such, by no stretch of reasoning the compensation of
amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- can be said to be an exaggerated one be it with or
without any medical bill supporting thereto although the medical bills to said
6
MA No. 71/2010
effect are there. On account of pain and suffering and loss of amenities, the
compensation awarded is reasonable.
16.
Insofar as, the plea of Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant with respect to rate of interest is concerned. Mr. Suneel
Malhotra cites AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1243 that even the
Hon’ble the
Supreme Court at the relevant point of time used to grant 6% per annum rate of
interest on the compensation awarded.
17.
In view of the said judgment, the rate of interest admissible to the
compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT),
Jammu shall also be 6% per annum and accordingly, the compensation to be
worked out for the sake of its payment to the legal representatives of the
deceased-respondent No. 1.
CCROS No. 17/2010
18.
In view of the above, cross appeal, accordingly, is rejected.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
30.04.2024
Shivalee
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: No
Shivalee Khajuria
2024.05.03 13:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document