NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ASHA BHALCHANDRA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellant/nat ional Insurance Company is taking exception to the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 473/1991 filed by respondent/original claimant, dat ed 26th August, 2002, for claiming compensat ion against original respondent no. 2 - Driver of the offending truck, the respondent no. 3 - owner of the offending vehicle - Truck bearing no. NLM-8876 allegedly insured with the appellant, in respect of the injuries and permanent disablement caused to her in an accident dat ed11.4. 1991 when she was returning to home by her Luna Moped at about5. 20 p. m. on Hingna - Wadi road when she was hit by the offending truck and suffered multiple injuries to her both legs.

(2.) FACTS leading to her claim were that - in the year 1991 she was serving with one Sundeep Polymers, M. I. D. C. , Nagpur as Office Assistant. On the fat eful day, she was returning home on her Luna Moped. When she was about to take turn on Hingna - Wadi Road, for her home, the truck bearing No. NLM-8876 came in excessive speed and knocked her down. She suffered serious injuries to her both legs. The details of the injuries are given in the claim petition. It is alleged that the said truck was driven by the respondent no. 2 and owned by respondent no. 3 and it was insured with the appellant. It is further claimed that she was taken to the Hospital immediat ely after the accident and her family members were informed. She was treat ed in the hospital of Dr. Babhulkar Orthopedic Surgeon for about 3 months. For a large period she was bedridden. She was discharged from the hospital on13.6. 1991. It is alleged that even thereafter she was required to undergo medical treat ment as well as physiotherapy treat ment for a long time and she was unable to at tend her day to day work. It is further claimed that she was meritorious in her studies during her educat ional career and at the time of accident she was studying in M. Com. She was also preparing for M. Com. Part II Examinat ion. She had completed the course for Diploma in Public Relat ions. She had, as well; completed the course of Telephone operat ing as well as in 'english Typing'. She used to take part in various activities. She was earning monthly salary of Rs. 1,200/- from her employment with Sundeep Polymers. In the month of May 1991 i. e. some time after the dat e of accident she was to get enhanced salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is claimed that she was very very bright in educat ion and had potential of getting a very good job of Class I Officer. But because of accident she could not appear for her M. Com. Part II examinat ion and further suffered loss of confidence and her better life in future, so also marriage prospects. She had to undergo mental agony and suffered loss of charm in the life. By giving details she claimed compensat ion of Rs. 5,00,000/- on all the counts, those are available. It is claimed that in view of the fact that the driver of the said truck was negligent in driving the said vehicle because of which the accident had occurred, the said driver, owner of the vehicle as well as its insurer are jointly and severally liable for the same. In addition, the respondent no. l had claimed that the medical expenses were borne by her fat her for which he had received some reimbursement, it is necessary to mention that she had claimed Rs. 71,087. 15 towards medical treat ment and operat ion charges. Rs. 75,000/- towards mental and physical shock, pains and sufferings, Rs. 75,000/- as compensat ion for loss of amenities in the life, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards damages on account of adverse effect on the marriage prospects and married life, Rs. 50,000/- towards damages for loss of expectat ion of life and Rs. 50,000/- towards inconvenience, disappointment, discomfiture, frustrat ion mental stress and loss of confidence etc. In all she claimed Rs. 5,01,087.15.

(3.) LAT er on the appellant filed pursis to adopt the reply to the applicat ion under section 140 of the M. V. Act as written stat ement vide Exh.48.