NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan which has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 4,45,000 to the claimant Mukesh alias Bablu who although is a boy aged eight years only, suffered irreparable injuries on his right leg, since he was hit by the truck which was running at a very high speed as a result of which he is a completely disabled person so much so as per the evidence of the witnesses of the claimant, that he has to be lifted on lap by his relatives or parents. It cannot be disputed that in a situation of this nature where the victim of the accident is compelled to live the life of worse than a dead man, has to be adequately compensated since the claimant/ victim although would remain alive, he would be completely dependent for his entire life on someone else be it his relative or some person who is hired for his assistance. The normal rule of multiplier as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 therefore is not fit to be applied to a situation of this nature in my opinion specially when it is a case of injury and not death for which the multiplier is applied.

(2.) The counsel for appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. has submitted that the victim boy Mukesh alias Bablu suffered only 45 per cent disability on his right leg who was aged only 8 years and, therefore, he is not entitled for such a huge compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant obviously is contending on behalf of National Insurance Co. Ltd., but at this juncture, I cannot restrain from expressing my anguish at the attitude of the insurance companies which more often than not raise objections merely for the sake of raising objections. What is sought to be emphasised is that insurance companies are expected to be reasonable and maintain a certain standard of rectitude even while raising objections and cannot be expected to raise flimsy objections like an ordinary litigant which cannot stand the test of scrutiny of evidence even at a glance.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant was grilled hard to explain the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim boy and although it was insisted that the. boy has suffered only 45 per cent injuries, it could not be disputed that he is totally immobile and an incapacitated individual who has to be lifted by someone on his lap even for his daily chores. It is thus obvious that he can neither lead a normal life nor can receive any education or acquire earning capacity, yet the insurance company is raising objection against the amount of compensation in terms of percentage of injuries and multiplier. The insurance companies certainly are entitled to take valid objections which are arguable while contesting the claim case but where the medical report is unimpeachable and the victims physical status can be easily verified even by looking at him, the insurance company is surely not expected to raise a flimsy objection as it was in the instant case. This court had gone to the extent of suggesting to the counsel for the appellant that the victim boy may be summoned in this court in person but in case the disability of the child is found to be correct after he appears, the insurance company may be imposed a heavy cost for making a false averment before the court. At this, counsel for the appellant backed out and gave up the argument; insofar as challenge to the disability of the boy is concerned.