NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MANOHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the said Act) challenges the judgment dated 11 -12 -2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur wherein it proceeded to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,44,000/ -to the respondent No. 1 under Section 166 of the said Act

(2.) ON 29 -11 -1994, when the respondent No. 1 along with some others was travelling in a Van, the same met with an accident with a Truck that was duly registered with the present appellant. The respondent No. 1 suffered various injuries due to which he was required to undertake treatment for considerable period of time. He, therefore, filed petition under Section 166 of the said Act claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 26,95,334/ -. This petition was opposed by the present appellant by filing written statement. The respondent No. 1 thereafter led evidence and examined five witnesses in support of the claim for compensation. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record found the respondent No. 1 entitled for compensation for an amount of Rs. 15,44,000/ -with a direction to pay said amount within a period of 45 days failing which it was to be recovered with 12% interest per annum. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) SHRI A. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal as regards permanent disability of the respondent No. 1. He submitted that various doctors who had treated the respondent No. 1 had been duly examined and they had specifically stated that on account of injuries suffered in the accident, the disability of the respondent No. 1 was of a permanent nature. He submitted that even the Medical Reports and the discharge card clearly indicated that the disability of the respondent No. 1 was permanent. He also referred to the statements made on oath in Civil Application No. 2340/2012 that even after passage of time the nature of disability had not reduced and the respondent No. 1 continued to be permanently disabled. He then submitted that it was, in fact, a case for enhancing the compensation considering the nature of disability. He submitted that even if the respondent No. 1 had not preferred in cross objection or a cross appeal, if it was found that the claimant was entitled for additional amount of compensation, the same could always be granted. In that regard, he relied on judgment of the Delhi High Court in MAC APP 629/2010 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mamta Kumari & Ors.) decided on 6 -9 -2012. He also relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Jakir Hussain Vs. Sabir : 2015 (2) SCALE 582 to urge that the respondent No. 1 had not been granted any compensation on account of loss of earning during the period of treatment as well as for future medical treatment. He also referred to the decision in Kavita Vs. Deepak and others : (2012)8 SCC 604 in that regard. He, therefore, submitted that in the facts of the present case, the respondent No. 1 was entitled to a higher amount of compensation.