NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DEEP RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals, preferred against a common award dated 14.8.2002 and arising out of same accident, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, shall be disposed of by this order.

(2.) IT appears that on 5.1.1998, Truck bearing registration No. JKN -7001, carrying labour in its body, being driven rashly and negligently when reached at Devika Bridge, the driver lost control over the steering as a result of which the truck fell into the river Devika and respondent Deep Raj was fortunate enough to have survived with only injuries whereas Ram Lal succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Claim petitions were filed, both by Deep Raj and dependents of deceased Ram Lal, claiming compensation, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together by the Tribunal and after recording evidence and hearing the parties the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 4,58,000/ - as compensation under various heads to claimant Deep Raj whereas an amount of Rs. 4,31,232/ - was awarded as compensation to the dependants of deceased Ram Lal, reduced by interim relief granted under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alongwith 9% interest in each case from the date of filing of the claim petitions. The appellant -insurance company, however, made applications under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking permission from the Tribunal to contest the claims on all grounds available to it.

(3.) THE appellant has challenged the award in both the claim petitions on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive and the interest has been allowed even on future loss of earnings, which is not permissible under law. It is submitted that in Claim Petition titled Deep Raj v. Dev Raj and anr, the doctor has opined that claimant was having stiffness of left ankle and left knee which does not incapacitate him from doing any manual work but the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/ - on account of loss of future earnings, without any justification which is grossly excessive and is on higher side. The doctor, in his certificate, has clearly given 45% permanent disability of the claimant. According to the doctor, the claimant, with this disability, cannot walk properly and require a stick to support for the rest of his life as his leg has become thin and he will have difficulty in climbing stairs and boarding a bus. This makes it abundantly clear that the claimant cannot pursue his usual evocation of labour to earn his livelihood.