ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. LACCHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 12.9.2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur in Claim Case No. 52/03, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,35,200/- to the respondent No. 1 on account of amputation of left leg above knee, suffered by him. The Insurance Company, therefore, assails the quantum of compensation on the ground that the story in FIR lodged in the police station indicates that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and that the amount is excessive for which the appellant Insurance Company had obtained permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE factum of the accident has not been disputed by the parties. It has also not been disputed that the vehicle was insured with the appellant Company. As per the case of the claimant, on 2.11.2002 while he was standing on the road, waiting for a vehicle for going to Maksi, from the side of Sarangpur truck bearing Registration No. MPU-1038 driven by respondent No. 3 Baneshing collided with the claimant, with the result the wheel of the truck ran over his leg causing crush injury. During treatment the leg had to be amputated from above the knee. In these premises the claimant respondent No. 1 Lacchiram claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal accepted the claim that Lacchiram has suffered 85% permanent disability and, accordingly, on finding that his income was Rs. 3,000/- per month (as against the claim of Rs. 3,500/-), it was multiplied by 12 to calculate the annual income and the annual income of Rs. 36,000/- was multiplied by 17 and a sum of Rs. 6,12,000/- was arrived at. Since the case was of 85% disablement, Rs. 5,20,200/- being 85% of the above amount was awarded. In addition Rs. 50,000/- were awarded for treatment, Rs. 15,000/- for special diet and Rs. 50,000/- for pain and sufferings. Thus, against the total amount of Rs. 6,35,200/-, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

(3.) WE find that on account of failure of the Insurance Company to examine the person, who had lodged the FIR and the scribe of the FIR as also the person who had communicated the said information to the Head Constable, merely on account of the recital in the FIR, it cannot be said that it contradicted the claim made by the claimant in his claim petition. As pointed out above the Insurance Company has also admitted that he was standing by the side of the road, but contrary to the rules. In the above state of factual matrix, the reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of the apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Devireddy. Konda Reddy and others [2003 (II) MPWN 5 = 2003 ACJ 468] is in apt. In fact, the facts of the present case are similar to the facts contained in the decision of this Court in Dhanwanti and others v. Kulwant Singh and others [1994 ACJ 708]. In the said case despite investigating officer having been examined with respect to the statement made in the FIR, in the absence of any legal and cogent evidence by the Insurance Company, on the basis of the contents of the FIR the claim could not be defeated. We are, therefore, of the view that the stand of the respondent No. 1 that he was standing by the side of the road when the truck hit him and ran over his leg is probable on test of preponderance of probabilities.