National Insurance Company Limited vs Fayaz Ahmad Bhat And Others

Way back in the year 2003, an accident took place on 23rd June 2003, resulting in severe injuries to respondent no.1. A claim petition was filed by

petitioner before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pulwama (“Tribunal†for short). Appellant Insurance Company resisted claim petition. The

Tribunal framed following Issues for adjudication:

Whether on 23.06.2003 respondent no.1 was driving scooter bearing registration no.JK01F-8744 rashly and negligently with the result hit the

petitioner who was on the correct side of the road and caused him grievous injuries which resulted in his permanent disablement? OPP

In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?

Whether on the date of accident respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without any driving licence, if so, what is its effect upon the

claim?

Relief.

Claimant/respondent no.1 examined two witnesses, besides himself. Appellant insurance company produced one witness before Tribunal.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through record of Tribunal.

Learned counsel for appellant has stated that compensation awarded by Tribunal is arbitrary, excessive and unjust inasmuch as Tribunal has without

any basis taken income of claimant as Rs.6000/- per month. it is contended that claimant/respondent no.1 has not suffered any kind of disability and

therefore, there was no loss of income due to injury. Claimant is stated to have not examined any doctor to prove medical certificate and even in

medical certificate it has been reflected that claimant has suffered fracture of left zygoma, which was described as grievous injury. It is next averred

that Tribunal is not right in awarding Rs.3.00 Lacs on account of loss of earning capacity.

Taking into account grounds raised in the Appeal and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, I have gone through the record of the

Tribunal and considered the matter.

Perusal of file reveals that, appellant Insurance Company in its written statement before the Tribunal, insisted that claimant did not suffer any injury

and that the scooter bearing registration no.JK01F-8744 was not involved in accident on alleged date of occurrence. It was admitted that the scooter

was insured with appellant Insurance Company.

While adjudicating upon and deciding Issue no.1, onus to prove the same was saddled on claimant, the Tribunal discussed witnesses produced

before it, who, in their deposition, corroborated claim of claimant /respondent no.1. Besides documentary evidence, viz. FIR no.222/2003 of police post

Kakapora, was also produced by claimant. The evidence of claimant remained unrebutted before the Tribunal and therefore, Issue no.1 was rightly

decided in favour of claimant.

Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, Issue no.2, with respect whereof had been framed, was discoursed in depth and reference to

judgements of the Supreme Court in this regard was also made by the Tribunal. Thus, contention of appellant Insurance Company that compensation

granted by Tribunal is highly exorbitant, is specious. Tribunal has taken all facets of the matter into consideration, while computing compensation.

Tribunal has kept in mind and applied law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121. In that

view of matter, Issue no.2 has been rightly decided by Tribunal, granting compensation of Rs.4.00 Lacs in favour of claimant/respondent no.1.

In the above milieu, it is germane to add that there cannot be actual compensation for anguish of heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality

lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensationâ€. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine

“just compensation†which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.†[Vide: K. Suresh v. New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 274].

While deciding Issue no.3, the Tribunal has given right of recovery to appellant Insurance Company from owner and driver of vehicle. In that view

of matter, impugned Award need not be interfered with and as a corollary thereof instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal on hand is dismissed.

Record of the Tribunal, if summoned/received, be sent down along with copy of this judgement.