Rehana Akhter Mir vs Gulzar Ahmad Wani And Others

Aggrieved of Award dated 10.10.2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for brevity "Tribunal") on a claim Petition no.195 of 2011 titled Rehana Akhtar Mir v. Gulzar Ahmad Wani and others, saddling respondent-Insurance Company with liability to indemnify insured and pay compensation of Rs.2,75,400/- along with 6.5% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till final realization, appellants seek setting-aside thereof on the grounds made mention of in Appeal on hand.

The case set up by appellant in memo of appeal on hand is that injured, namely, Rehana Akhtar Mir D/o Abdul Qayoom Mir R/o Bemina, Srinagar, was driving the vehicle Alto and on reaching near Gangoo, Pulwama General road, hit by offending Vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing Registration No.JK13B/7721, being driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently injuring petitioner. A case FIR No.11/2011 was registered in police Station Pulwama. Appellant has claimed adequate compensation from respondents.

Respondents 1 & 3 before the Tribunal filed their respective written statements.

The Tribunal, upon perusal of pleadings of parties, settled following Issues for adjudication:

1) Whether on 19.01.2011 a vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing regd. No. JK13/7721 being driven by respondent no. 1 from Pulwama towards Srinagar and on reaching near Gangoo Pulwama General Road the driver of the offending vehicle lost control over his vehicle and hit the petitioner's vehicle (Alto) and injured her. The petitioner namely Rehana Akhter Mir was immediately shifted to District Hospital, Pulwama by the passer Byers, where from she was referred to SKIMS Soura? OPP

2) Whether the owner/respondent has permitted the (respondent No. 1) of the offending vehicle to ply the said vehicle without valid, effective D/L and other vehicular documents and has committed the breach of insurance contract absolved respondent No. 3 Insurance Company from its liability on account of petitioner's claim? OPR-3

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? OPP

4) Relief.

Appellant, in support of her claim, examined, besides herself, witnesses namely Bashir Ahmad Mir, Inspector Mushtaq Ahmad No. 3851/NGO & Dr. Altaf Kirmani, HOD, Deptt of Neuro Surgery SKIMS Soura. On 14.12.2015 evidence of appellant was closed. Thereafter, respondents were directed to lead their evidence. Respondent Insurance Company examined only one witness, namely, Suhail Anwar, in support of its contention. The respondent Insurance Company's evidence came to be closed on 18.05.2017. Appellant also produced documentary evidence in the shape of copies of Challan, FIR, R/C, I/C and medical record. After deciding Issues, the Tribunal passed impugned Award.

I have gone through the file and considered the matter.

Learned counsel for appellant, to reinforce the case set up by appellant, has stated that compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as interest is on lower side as Tribunal has not taken into consideration evidence led by appellant before it vis-à-vis income of appellant. It is stated that Tribunal has not taken into account pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads while awarding compensation inasmuch as Tribunal has failed to appreciate the result of injury which incapacitated appellant throughout her life to have a married life, which is a social stigma on appellant. The Tribunal is said to have been bound to take into consideration the pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life that appellant has suffered. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not taken into account medical expenditures, medical treatment, attendants, transportation, special diet, hospitalization, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditures while passing impugned award. The appellant is said to have been suffering from serious injuries in her skull to which appellant had to procure resection and implant on her skull so that cognitive ability of appellant was treated and expenditure for procurement of artificial skull was more than Rs.6.00 lakhs, but this aspect of expenditure has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that Tribunal has not taken into account the grave nature of injury, where body of appellant is wrecked and brain destroyed and she is not capable to function normally and therefore, it was mandatory on the part of Tribunal to assess fair compensation as comparable to the loss suffered by appellant

It may be mentioned here that the Tribunal after deciding Issues 1&2 in favour of appellant and against respondent-Insurance Company, discussed in detail Issue no.3, viz. entitlement of compensation and its computation. The Tribunal while deliberating upon Issue no.3, relied upon and reproduced pertinent excerpt of judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. The Tribunal, therefore, reproduced the compensation sought for by appellant in her claim petition. The Tribunal under the Pecuniary head, discussed, first of all, Medical Expenses incurred by appellant and in view of all that was produced before the Tribunal, an amount of Rs.1,95,400/- was calculated and granted in favour of appellant. Consequent to that, the Tribunal discussed and decided transport charges and granted Rs.10,000/- in favour of appellant. Thereafter, it granted special diet in the amount of Rs.10,000/- in favour of appellant. The Tribunal has also considered and decided grant of compensation on account of Attendant Charges and awarded Rs.10,000/- in this regard.

The Tribunal, on consideration of nature of injuries suffered by appellant in the accident in question and her remaining confined to bed for more than one month during her treatment, found appellant entitled to Rs.50,000/- and has rightly granted so. There is nothing wrong in the impugned Award. The Tribunal has rightly assessed and computed the compensation on various heads on the basis of witnesses produced and evidence placed on record. The impugned Award is lucid and comprehensive and therefore, does not need any interference.

Resultantly, appeal on hand is liable to be dismissed.

For the reasons discussed above, the Appeal is dismissed.

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