RAM BAHAL BHARTI Vs. AMIT ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a compensation of Rs.7,40,326.00, the Respondent No.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was exonerated of its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the contract of insurance was cancelled because of dishonour of the cheque paid towards the premium.

(2.) THERE is twin challenge to the judgment. First, the compensation awarded is on the lower side. It is stated that since the Appellant was incapacitated to work and was granted compensation on account of loss of earning capacity to the extent of 80%, an addition of 30% should have been made on account of future prospects/inflation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559. It is urged that the compensation of Rs.30,000.00 granted towards pain and suffering in case of amputation of a leg is very meagre and niggardly. Second, the Respondent Insurance Company failed to prove that any intimation regarding dishonour of the cheque was sent to the insured. Thus, the Respondent Insurance Company was under obligation to indemnify the insured and pay the compensation to the Appellant who was the third party.

(3.) SECTION 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) enjoins payment of just compensation. In General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 176, the Supreme Court held as under: -