Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Abdul Rahman & Ors

J U D G M E N T

G. P. MITTAL, J.

¶1The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns the award dated 19.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) on the ground that Jilajit Singh (Respondent No.3) did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, yet the Insurance Company was made liable to pay the compensation of ` 3,20,000/-. It was not given the right to recover the compensation ordered to be paid. It is averred that the compensation ordered to be paid is excessive.

¶2Abdul Rahman (Respondent No.1) sustained injuries while he was riding on his bicycle on 04.12.2004 at 3:20 PM and proceeding to his house from Shastri Park. He was hit was a truck bearing No.DL-1LE-0578 while it was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Jilajit Singh, Respondent No.3.

¶3Respondent No.1 suffered compound fracture of both bones in his left leg resulting into permanent disability of 35%. The Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of truck number DL-1LE-0578 and awarded the compensation as under:-

¶1Compensation towards pain and suffering ` 50,000/-

¶2Loss of amenities ` 40,000/-

¶3Loss of income during treatment ` 19,800/-

¶4Future loss in earning capacity due to disability ` 1,02,960/-

¶5Attendant charges for four months (` 4,000/-per month) ` 16,000/-

¶6Expenses towards medical bills ` 60,325/-

¶7Reasonable future medical expenses ` 15,000/-

¶8Compensation towards conveyance and special diet (without bills) ` 15,000/-

TOTAL rounded off ` 3,19,085/-` 3,20,000/-

¶4It is settled that the onus to prove that there was breach in the terms of the conditions of policy is on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company did summon a witness from the Regional Transport Authority but preferred to close its evidence on 26.05.2010 without examining witness or without seeking any future opportunity for producing any evidence. The Appellant, therefore, cannot make any grievance against the Tribunal's findings that the Appellant had failed to establish that there was violation of the policy condition to avoid liability under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. (National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh 2004 (3) SCC 297).

¶5The Appellant has failed to show as to how the compensation awarded was excessive or unreasonable. The award of compensation, therefore, cannot be interfered with.

¶6The appeal is without any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award is confirmed.

¶7Pending applications also stands disposed of.

¶8Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court for information.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 25, 2011 vk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 22nd November, 2011 Pronounced on: 25th November, 2011 + MAC APP. 820/2010 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Santosh Paul Advocate with Mr. Arvind Gupta Advocate. Versus ABDUL RAHMAN & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Subodh Kumar Pathak, Advocate for the Victim. Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Order? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Order should be reported in the Digest?