Uttarakhand High Court
Km. Laxmi Devi vs I.C.I.C.I. Insurance Company And ... on 18 April, 2017
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 124/2015
Km. Laxmi Devi .... Appellant
Versus
ICICI Insurance Company & Another .... Respondents
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the appellant/claimant.
Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1/insurance
company.
Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2/owner.
With
Appeal from Order No. 186/2015
Udai Singh Butola .... Appellant
Versus
ICICI Insurance Company & Another .... Respondents
Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate, for the appellant/owner.
Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1/insurance
company.
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2/ claimant.
April 18, 2017
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
As both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order rendered by the Tribunal on 9.1.2015, hence are being taken up together for the adjudication.
Accident occurred on 18.5.2013 at 5.45 PM in the tardy hilly roads of District Tehri Garhwal when a Max cab transport vehicle bearing no. UA07S-3741 was being driven by its owner Udai Singh Butola himself. Km. Laxmi, an unmarried girl running in her early twenties, who was travelling as a passenger in that cab suffered serious injuries including fractures in many parts of her body in such accident. So, she remained hospitalized for several months and as per her version, expenditure of about rupees five lakhs was incurred in such medical treatment. She was referred from one centre to another higher medical 2 centre and somehow she could save her life but with a disability to the extent of 45 per cent. The disability certificate was issued by a medical board headed by Chief Medical Officer of District Tehri Garhwal and such board also included an orthopaedic surgeons and one physician. Such certificate bears their signatures and manifest that Km. Laxmi is unable to bend her joints, unable to stand and walk due to impairment in many parts of her body.
Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 41,000/- only along with 6 per cent interest thereon. Such a meagre compensation has been granted on the premise that the medical papers and several bills pertaining to her treatment could not got proved by her in the Court.
I feel that proving of all the medical bills including other papers is undoubtedly a pre-requisite for granting the relief to the claimant/petitioner, but at the same time, it is difficult to doubt the credibility of each and every case on this sole premise. Km. Laxmi has produced several bills of a premier medical institute Synergies Institute of Medical Science, which has attained the name and fame in the capital city Dehradun of this province. So, I think that it would be quite unjustified for her if the Court asks to summon several doctors who were indulged during the course of her treatment in such institute.
That apart, several x-ray plates of her all the four limbs (arms and legs) have been produced including the report of the concerning doctor. Here again it would be quite unjustified to ask the petitioner to summon such doctors to prove all the pathological and other laboratory reports.
Besides, PW3 who is an orthopaedic surgeon has been produced before the Tribunal and he has proved the disability certificate as well as the long and serious ailment 3 of Km. Laxmi. Nothing has come out in his cross- examination to place the discredit in his statement.
Km. Laxmi has also examined himself even in such miserable conditions in the witness box and has proved her inability to walk, stand and in bending her knees and arms.
So, I think that making the assessment to the tune of only Rs. 41,000/- will be quite unjustified in the case in hand. At the same time, it can be observed that the anguish and the mental and physical agony of such an unmarried girl, running in her early twenties, cannot be measured in terms of monetary compensation. This accident has ruined her whole life and career. Nobody would happily marry her. For the whole life, she will be dependent on others economically and for the day-to-day routine functions. So, looking to her plight, this amount of Rs. 41,000/- is quite insufficient.
I, accordingly, enhance the compensation to rupees fifteen lakhs including all the medical expenses which she or her guardians were constrained to bear in order to save her life. Six per cent simple annual interest shall also be payable on this amount with effect from the date of institution of the claim petition.
As regards the liability, the Tribunal has again committed error by fastening it on the driver-cum-owner Udai Singh Butola on the premise that he was in possession of the driving licence to drive only the light motor vehicles, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was a transport vehicle. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the position clear in the celebrated judgment rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, and has observed as under:
4"If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and jeep separately. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing the requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence."
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I shift the liability to pay the compensation on the I.C.I.C.I. Insurance Company (respondent no. 1).
In view of what has been set forth above, both these appeals are hereby allowed. The said insurance company shall deposit the entire amount, as directed by this Court hereinabove, within four weeks from today before the Tribunal concerned and the same shall be released immediately in favour of Km. Laxmi. Otherwise, she shall be at liberty to initiate the execution proceedings.
5Registry shall remit the compulsory statutory amount deposited by Udai Singh Butola along with the interest it has earned to the Tribunal concerned, which, in turn, shall release the entire deposited amount together with the accrued interest to the said appellant without asking for any surety/security from him.
Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated above. Let the LCR be sent back.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Prabodh