Mehmooda vs Aliass Hussain Shah And Ors

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J

Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 5th October 2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition bearing File no. 54/2008 titled Mehmooda v. Alilass Hussain Shah and Ors.., directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 73,600/- (inclusive of interim award, if any, passed) within a period of four weeks along with 6.5% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein.

A claim petition, as is evident from perusal of the file, was filed by claimant/appellant, before the Tribunal on 1st April 2008, averring therein that the appellant Mehmooda D/o Azmat Ullah R/o SarayeeBanday Kamala Kout Uri, had injured in an accident, which took September 2007, at SarayeeBanday, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle (Matador), bearing Registration no.JK09/3111, which was insured with Insurance Company. Appellant in her claim petition before the Tribunal, sought grant of compensation of Rs.3.00 Lakhs along with interest.

Insurance Company resisted the claim petition before the Tribunal, inter alia,on the groundsthat driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of alleged accident, besides the vehicle was being plied without valid R/C, I/C, fitness and route permit. It was also stated that the alleged vehicle was not insured with respondent insurance company.

The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed following Issues for determination, which are:

Whether on 19.09.2007 the petitioner was hit by theoffending vehicle bearing regd. No. JK09/3111 (Matador)driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 its drivernamely Imtiyaz Hussain Shah S/O Sadiq Shah RIO Passagran Uri causing grievous injuries to the petitioner resulting to permanent disablement. ? OPP

Whether the respondent No. 1, owner permitted the respondent No. 2 driver knowingly to ply the offending vehicle on the material date of occurrence with Invalid and ineffective D/L and other vehicular documents like R/P, FitnessCertificate, if yes, the respondent insured has committed thebreach of policy stipulations absolved the respondent No. 4company from its liability on account of petitioner's claim. ? OPR-4.

In case the issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative, to whatamount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to, fromwhom and in what proportion. ? OPP.

Relief.

The appellant produced and examined four witnesses before the Tribunal. Insurance Company has produced two witnesses in support of its stand. In terms of impugned Award, the Tribunal found appellantentitled to receive compensation of Rs.73,600/- along with 6.5% interest per annum.

Heard and considered.

It is submission of counsel for appellant that the Tribunal has not appreciated that at the time of accident appellant was house wife, working in kitchen, garden and in the field, and that due to accident she became permanently disabled and that the Tribunal escaped the notice for grant of compensation under the head of future income and not applied the multiplier granted as was required of it. Thus, learned counsel has averred that award impugned needs to be modified by increasing the compensation in favour of claimant/appellant. Learned counsel to lend support to his submissions, has relied upon National Insurance Company Limited and another v. Sujata Manna and others, 2017 Supreme (Cal).

In view of case set up by appellant and submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, I have gone through the impugned judgement as also the Tribunal record. For computation and payment of compensation, the Tribunal framed, discussed and decided Issue no.3 (In case the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to, from whom and in what proportion). While deciding Issue no.1, the Tribunal referred to judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, to grant just compensation. The Tribunal, first of all,discussed the pecuniary damages for grant of compensation and under the said head, it computed the loss of income, medical expenses, special diet, and attendant charges. Thereafter, the Tribunal discussed the non-pecuniary damages and under the said head, the Tribunal computed grant of compensation for pain, shock and sufferings. Under the Pecuniary Heads, the Tribunal granted compensation in the amount of Rs.23,600/- and under the Non-Pecuniary Heads, granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- and in total granted the compensation of Rs.73,600/- in favour of claimant/appellant with 6.5% interest from the date of claim petition till its final realization.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Tribunal has given elaborate, comprehensive, and well-reasoned Award. The judgement relied upon by learned counsel for appellant being distinguishable in facts and circumstances of the present case and, therefore, does not come to the aid of appellant. In that view of matter, impugned Award need not be interfered with and as a consequence of which the appellant in hand is liable to be dismissed.

In view of above, the Appeal (MA no.89/2018) is also dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

Copy of this judgement be sent down along with record of the Tribunal.