United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ved Parkash and another

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

Insurance Company against the award dated 06.10.2007, passed by learned

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter called the "Tribunal")

in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short - the "Act") vide which respondent No.1-claimant Ved

Parkash has been awarded compensation to the tune of 4,57,560/- on

account of the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident

which took place on 21.05.2004.

The present appeal has been preferred by United India

Insurance Company Ltd. to assail the quantum of compensation determined

by the learned Tribunal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone

through the record of the case carefully.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the present

claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. The learned

Tribunal was not competent to award the medical expenses beyond

15,000/-, whereas the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded a sum of

1,30,000/- towards the medical expenses. Thus, he contended that the

amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is against the

structured formula prescribed in the Second Schedule of the Act.

I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

Respondent No.1-claimant Ved Prkash while stepping into

the witness box deposed that he had spent 3,00,000/- on his treatment,

medicines, operation fee, hospital charges, attendant charges and

transportation etc. and more money is required for further treatment. From

the statement of PW1 Dr. Parveen Chawla it comes out that claimant Ved

Parkash was having fracture right radius and compound fracture both bone

of right leg. He underwent surgery. Fracture both bone leg was treated by an

external fixator. He again had to be admitted in City Hospital, Hisar on

02.03.2005. As per the statement of PW2 Dr. Rajiv Aggarwal, he was

operated upon on 03.03.2005 for nailing of right tibia with bone grafting

and was discharged on 07.03.2005. He was again admitted in that hospital

on 02.05.2005 and then on 16.05.2005. Ultimately, his right lower limb

below knee had to be amputated. The claimant had also remained admitted

in Arora Orthopedic Hospital, Hisar which is evident from the statement of

PW3 Dr. Ashok Arora. It shows that respondent No.1-claimant Ved Parkash

had remained admitted at different times in different hospitals and received

treatment from different doctors.

The learned Tribunal taking into consideration the entire oral

as well as documentary evidence produced by the claimant particularly the

bills regarding treatment and purchase of medicines awarded a sum of

1,30,000/- to the claimant as medical expenses keeping in view the nature

of injuries suffered by him and period of hospitalization. There is no dispute

with the proposition of law that in a claim petition filed under Section 163-

A of the Act, the compensation is to be calculated as per the Second

Schedule of the Act, but at the same time the calculation of compensation

and amount worked out in the Schedule suffers from several defects. The

claimant in this case has suffered 70% disability on account of amputation

of leg in the middle and deformity of the right elbow due to the injuries

suffered in this accident. Thus, in the instant case as respondent No.1-

claimant Ved Parkash has suffered serious injuries he remained hospitalized

on various intervals and underwent multiple surgeries and ultimately his

right leg below knee has to be amputated. So, in view of the facts and

circumstances of the case, there is justification of departure from the Second

Schedule and to award actual medical expenses incurred by claimant

respondent No.1 Ved Parkash.

In case The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt.

Kulwinder Kaur and another FAO No.3874 of 2013 decided on

26.07.2013 in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act a sum of

2,29,000/- were awarded towards medical expenses. In the appeal filed by

the Insurance Company the plea was raised that under Second Schedule the

medical expenses cannot be allowed exceeding 15,000/-. This Court laid

down as under : -

"In my opinion, the submissions cannot be accepted. It has been held by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in a number of decisions that the second schedule contains a number of fallacies. It has to be followed in broad principles. In suitable cases where treatment is long or loss is heavy, the compensation cannot be kept confined within the limits prescribed by the second schedule. The law on the point is well settled by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra 1996 (4) SCC 362. The decision in Trilok Chandra''s case [supra] has been reiterated by Hon`ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Saroj & Ors. 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 431."

Similarly, in case Reliance General Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Girdhari Lal and another FAO No.1312 of 2014 (O&M) decided

on 12.03.2014 this Court laid down as under : -

"Today, learned counsel for respondent no.1-caveator has sought to place reliance upon Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2013(4) RCR(Civil) 295 wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court has departed from the Schedule attached with Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the decision in Putta ma and others v. K.L.Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, to contend that in both these cases, Hon''ble Supreme Court has justified the departure from the Second Schedule and has urged that the present is the case wherein the actual medical expenses have to be given which justifies the departure from the provisions of the Second Schedule. I am also in agreement with the submissions raised by learned counsel for

respondent no.1-caveator. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed."

Similar view was taken by this Court in case Parvinder

Kaur Vs. Mandeep Singh and others FAO No.7530 of 2014 decided on

29.11.2016.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual as well as the legal

position, there is no ground to interfere with the award of the medical

expenses by the learned Tribunal in favour of respondent No.1-claimant

Ved Parkash.

Consequently, the present appeal is without any merit and

same is hereby dismissed.