Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Karan Singh and Others

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage on merits.

The appellant-insurer has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 30th June, 2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali (for short, ''the learned Tribunal''), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,845/- to the respondent-claimant.

The brief facts of the case are that an accident took place on 8th September 2007 when respondent-claimant along with other passengers was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. RJ-22-T-0956 from Bali to Falna. The jeep was driven by its driver respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand in a rash and negligent manner and it struck with a tree due to which the passengers of jeep including respondent-claimant suffered injuries. The respondent-claimant in the claim petition quantified the total amount of compensation as Rs. 2,77,000/- under different heads.

After issuance of notice, the driver respondent No. 2 submitted reply and refuted the contents of claim petition for want of knowledge, however, while admitting his employment with the owner of Jeep No. RJ-22-T-0956 averred that he was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Asserting that the Jeep is insured with appellant-Insurance Co., the second respondent pleaded that it is liable for payment of compensation.

In his reply, the owner of the Jeep, respondent No. 3 Inder Singh, also denied the contents of the claim petition and refuted the same. He has also stated that the Jeep was driven by its driver in right direction following the traffic rules but suddenly screw of the steering rod came out of its place which led to free the steering and that occasioned accident. Third respondent also averred that the jeep was insured with appellant insurance company as such appellant is liable to make payment of compensation.

Appellant insurance Company contested the claim and in its reply denied its liability stating that the Jeep was not insured with it and the cover note had been stolen from its office at Bhopal in respect of which a report was lodged at Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal on 26.08.2007 and public notice was also published in newspaper on 17.10.2007. The appellant insurance company prayed for rejection of the claim.

The learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination on the basis of pleadings of rival parties. To substantiate his claim, present claimant got examined himself and also produced certain documents, which were exhibited. The Insurance Company, driver and owner of Jeep neither examined any witness, nor produced any documentary evidence to support their case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

Although appellant insurer has assailed the impugned award on all or any of the grounds, which are available to the person against whom the claim has been made but taking into account tiny amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, I refrain myself from making any comments about the finding of rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. As the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of compensation to the respondent-claimant, who suffered injuries due to a vehicular accident, it is not desirable to upset the impugned award. Even otherwise, the legislature has provided under proviso to Section 173 that remedy of appeal is not available when the compensation awarded is less than Rs. 10,000/- which in the present case is slightly higher in denomination. Therefore, it is not in fitness of things to interfere with the award while exercising power of judicial review in this appeal.

Therefore, without disturbing the finding on Issue No. 1 about rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle and considering the fact that meagre sum is awarded as compensation, I am not inclined to appreciate the arguments of the appellant-insurer to examine the appeal on merit. While assessing the amount of compensation, for which the respondent claimant is held entitled, the learned Tribunal has made sincere endeavour to arrive at a figure, which is just and reasonable compensation commensurating with the injuries suffered by the claimant.

Resultantly, the instant appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with the observations made hereinabove.