Jammu & Kashmir High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mohd Anwar Bhat And Ors on 7 September, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
MA No. 404/2013
IA No. 1/2016
National Insurance Co. Ltd ... appellants
Through: - Mr. D.S.Chouhan Advocate
Vs.
Mohd Anwar Bhat and ors ...Respondent(s)
Through: - Mr. Bari Abdullah Malik Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1 The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal challenging award dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby respondent No.1-claimant has been held entitled to receive compensation in the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2 The facts giving rise to filing of instant appeal are that on 18.05.2009, respondent No.1-claimant received serious injuries on account of a road traffic accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. JKD/7121 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, respondent No.3 herein. The accident took place near Battrey Chesma on National Highway, Ramban which resulted into permanent disability to respondent No.1-claimant, who filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle.
23 The Tribunal, after framing the issues and after trial of the case, came to the conclusion that respondent No.1-claimant, on the basis of the evidence on record, has succeeded in establishing that he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25% to his forearm as a result of the injuries which he sustained in the aforesaid accident. 4 Since the offending vehicle was covered by policy of insurance issued by the appellant-Insurance company, the Tribunal, after assessing the compensation to which respondent No.1-claimant was entitled, directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest to respondent No.1-claimant. It is this award which is under challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the grounds of appeal and the impugned award.
6 The primary ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company is that the injured-respondent No.1 was a Government employee and, as such, even if he had suffered disability to his forearm, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation under the head 'loss of future income' in his favour as no such loss was actually caused to respondent No.1- claimant due to the disability suffered by him. The other ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company is that the disability certificate issued in favour of respondent No.1-claimant has been 3 issued by a Doctor who did not actually treat him and, as such, the Tribunal was not justified in relying upon the said certificate. 7 So far as the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is correct that the Tribunal, while assessing the compensation in favour of respondent No.1-claimant has awarded a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- under the head 'loss of future income'. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.1-claimant is a Government employee. However, a careful analysis of the award reveals that the Tribunal, in fact, has not awarded any compensation to the respondent No.1-claimant on account of loss of future income. What the Tribunal has awarded in favour of respondent No.1-claimant under this head is the expenditure likely to be incurred by respondent No.1-claimant in hiring the services of a driver as he has suffered 25% disability to his forearm which would hamper him from driving a vehicle. According to the Tribunal, respondent No.1-claimant being a Doctor is required to travel to Hospital in his own car and because of the nature of disability suffered by him, he would not able to drive his own car and would have to hire the services of a driver. On this reasoning, it has been held that the claimant is entitled to compensation equivalent to the expenditure likely to be incurred in hiring the services of a driver. 8 The Tribunal, having regard to the age of respondent No.1-the claimant, applied the multiplier of 12 and assessed the monthly expenditure of hiring the services of a driver at Rs.3000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- on account of expenditure he may have to incur in hiring the services of a driver. Thus, it is not a case where the 4 Tribunal has awarded compensation on account of loss of future income in favour of respondent No.1 claimant who happens to be a Government employee, but it is a case where respondent No.1-the claimant has been awarded compensation equivalent to the expenditure likely to be incurred in hiring the services of a driver. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the course adopted by the Tribunal while awarding the aforesaid sum in favour of respondent No.1-the claimant. 9 The next contention that has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Doctor, who has issued a disability certificate in favour of the claimant, has not actually treated the claimant, as such, he was not competent to issue the disability certificate in his favour. The disability certificate has been issued by the Board of Doctors and as per this certificate, respondent No.1-the claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability to his forearm. One of the signatories to the disability certificate is Dr. Farid Hussain, who has deposed about the authenticity of the said certificate during trial of the case before the Tribunal. The certificate in question has been issued by a duly constituted Board of Doctors. Thus, merely because, none of the members of the Board of Doctors did not actually treat the claimant for the injuries which he received due to the accident, does not render the certificate in question invalid. It is not the requirement of law that the certificate of disability should be issued by the same doctor who has actually treated the patient. A duly constituted Board of Doctors is competent to grant a certificate in this regard. Even otherwise, the appellant-Insurance Company has not brought to the notice of this court 5 any fact or material that would create any doubt about the authenticity of the disability certificate. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is, therefore, bound to be rejected. 10 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal as the impugned award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 07.09.2021 Sanjeev Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No