Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., ... vs Raju And Anr. on 1 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998ACJ1025, 1996(5)KARLJ115
ORDER M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. This matter came up for orders on 24-6-1997. While considering the I.As. 2, 3 and 4, I was of the view that it would be desirable to hear the appellant's learned Advocate on merits because the case is an old one and it is essential to consider whether at all it warrants admission. The I.A. No. II is allowed and the abatement is set aside. I.A. No. I is also allowed and the delay is condoned. I.A. No. III is allowed and consequently the amendments shall be treated as having been carried out.
2. Having heard the appellant's learned Advocate, I do concede that this is a case in which a considerable scaling down of the compensation would have been justified. In the first instance, it was submitted before me that even though the disability was fixed at 80% on the basis of the medical evidence that the authority has scaled it upto 100%. The justification for this was because the applicant was a bus driver whose arm was amputated and in his evidence he stated that his only source of livelihood was by working as a driver and that the disability disqualified him from performing any such job. The appellant's learned Advocate submitted that if the disability is to be construed at 100%, it should virtually mean that the person's source of livelihood would be reduced to zero. In the present situation he submitted that even if the applicant could not work as a driver, he could perhaps earn by performing some other functions which undoubtedly would yield a lower income but would still not disqualify him from doing any work whatsoever. This is an aspect of the matter which undoubtedly requires consideration but the real difficult in the way of the appellant's learned Advocate arises from the fact that there was absolutely no contest to the case in the lower Court. The evidence of the applicant has been allowed to go uncontroverted on these points as a result of which it would now not be permissible at the appellate stage to try and water down that evidence.
3. This Court has observed, time and again that the manner in which these cases are conducted in the lower Courts betrays a very casual and unprofessional approach. This is downright wrong approach because whether the learned Advocate represents the claimant who is entitled to get the best possible compensation within the framework of law or whether the learned Advocate represents the Insurance Company which is entitled to defend the proceeding and point out that the compensation must be limited only to that what is strictly due and not to any runaway figures, it is essential that the cases be conducted with a degree of responsibility, that the drafting be carefully and meticulously done and above all, that in the conduct of the trial, proper care and caution and adequate professional skills be displayed but these factors are found lacking in case and the present case is one more of that category. As far as the Insurance Companies are concerned, they are dealing in public money and therefore, they shall ensure that strict instructions are issued and that corrective action is taken in order to avoid that state of affairs.
4. The appellant's learned Advocate thereafter pointed out to me that the only evidence by way of age proof was on the basis of an affidavit filed before the authority. This again was not disputed nor was it controverted nor for that matter was the applicant asked to produce better documentary evidence. I do concede, as pointed out by the appellant's learned Advocate that this material was slender but the real problem that arises is that the affidavit formed part of the pleadings and in the absence of the statements therein having been disputed, the authority cannot really be found fault with for having relied on it.
5. The overall compensation that has been awarded in this case is undoubtedly disproportionate to what should have been normally awarded. The difficulty that has arisen is that the case is a very old one and at this late stage no useful purpose would be served by admitting this appeal as it would be impossible to take any corrective steps at this late point of time. I have brought it to the notice of the appellant's learned Advocate that at least hereinafter whenever compensations awarded are found to be excessive or grossly disproportionate that it is always open to the aggrieved party namely the Insurance Companies to apply to the High Court and urgent ad interim stay orders sought for even if the whole or part of the amount is deposited as is the requirement, and that steps be taken to ensure that the amount is not disbursed before the High Court considers the matter.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid situation, I find that no useful will be served by admitting this appeal. The same accordingly fails and stands disposed of.