NIRMALA Vs. JAGRASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal vide award dated 1.4.2002 in Claim Case No. 112/2000 passed by 2nd MACT, Indore, whereby a sum of Rs. 64,000 has been awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum, and the Insurance Company, Respondent No. 3 has exonerated, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that there was fracture of nasal bone and of the femur bone in the left leg. It is submitted that the appellant was hospitalized from 10.12.1999 to 30.12.1999 for a period of more than 25 days and there was permanent disability of 15%. Learned Counsel further submits that learned Tribunal has wrongly exonerated respondent No. 3 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was having learning licence. Reliance was placed on a decision reported in, I (2004) ACC 1 (SC) : : ACJ 2004 Vol. 1, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors., wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. It was further observed by the Apex Court that mere absence of fake or invalid driving licence or dis -qualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 is not liable. It is also submitted that amount awarded is just and proper. Breakup of Rs. 64,000 is as under: Towards medical expenses : 27050 Towards travelling expenses : 1500 Towards future expectations of life : 5000 Towards permanent disability : 25000 Towards pain and suffering : 5000

(3.) FROM the evidence on record it is evident that appellant was hospitalized, for a period of 25 days. There is permanent disability of 15%.. Thus, the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is on lower side. The amount is enhanced to Rs. 10,000. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent No. 3 shall be jointly responsible for the payment of the amount awarded. Enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.