Uttarakhand High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Farooq And Another on 9 June, 2016
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.360 of 2009
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
....... Appellant
Versus
Farooq & another
........ Respondents
Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. B.S. Koranga, Adv. for respondent no.1.
Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Having heard the rival contentions, it appears that the accident occurred on 19.10.2006 when the Truck, loaded with cement and other construction material, being driven from Gopeshwar to Chamoli, fell into a deep gorge. Mr. Farooq, who, by profession is said to be the driver (not of the offending truck), sustained severe injuries, inasmuch as, his both legs were fractured and he had to remain hospitalized at Govt. Hospital, Gopeshwar and subsequently at Base Hospital, Srinagar for quite a long time.
Learned counsel for the appellant has resisted the award of compensation basically on two grounds. The first one being that since Mr. Farooq, the claimant, was a gratuitous passenger, hence no amount could be awarded, more so, because in the policy, the compensation could have been awarded only up to -5- persons. I am unable to agree with this contention for the reason that even on looking to the cover note of the Policy at first instance, it divulges the premium paid in total for seven persons, 'WC to Employee-5', 'Employee 2 Others-1' and 'NFPP-1',. The abbreviation 'NFPP' has been clarified during the course of arguments as Non- Fare Paying Passenger.
The first information report was lodged on 19.10.2006, investigation in pursuance whereof, culminated into submission of a final report (Annexure 5 to the appeal) on 24.1.2007. The Investigating Officer has stated that in all, '8' passengers were boarded in such vehicle. In my view, without according opportunity to the other party to cross-examine this witness on this point, such an opinion can hardly be of any avail where other evidence is already available on deposition.
Furthermore, O.P. No.2 Irshad Ahmed Ansari (owner of the Truck) has deposed in his evidence that at the time of accident, in all -7- persons were boarded, wherein '4' were injured, out of whom, two died at the spot and one lost his life in the hospital at Dehradun.
Every opportunity was availed by the insurance company to cross-examine this witness but his credibility could not be shaken vis-à-vis to the final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police.
It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellant that 25 percent disability of the injured Farooq has been reported by the Medical Board, so this much quantum of compensation could not be awarded. I again do not find any force in this argument for the reason that even if it is accepted that the certificate was issued showing the appellant to be 25 percent disabled, then the issue, which cannot be lost sight of, is that the injured 3 suffered fracture in his both legs, wherefor he had to remain hospitalized for many days. So, this amount of quantum of compensation is not much looking to the mental and bodily pains suffered by him.
In all, I do not find any force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Amount deposited in this Court as statutory deposit be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimant.
Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent to the Court below for compliance.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 09.06.2016 Rdang