Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs Jaffarsharif S/O. Shaheblal Shaikh, on 20 March, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S. Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
M.F.A.CROB. No.810 OF 2012 C/W
M.F.A.No.25164/2011 (MV)
IN MFA.CROB NO 810 OF 2012
BETWEEN
JAFFARASHARIF S/O. SHEBULAL SHAHEBLAL SHAIKH,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELGAUM.
..... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI VITTHAL S TELI, ADV.)
AND
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
..... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G N RAICHUR, ADV.)
THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA NO.25164/2011 FILED U/O. 41
RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 09.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.2785/2005 ON THE FILE
OF THE MEMBER, MACT, RAIBAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
2
IN MFA NO 25164 OF 2011
BETWEEN
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD,
BELGAUM. REPTD., BY ITS ASST. MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, TP-HUB, II FLOOR,
SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBLI - 580029.
..... APPELLANT
(BY SRI G N RAICHUR, ADV.)
AND
1. JAFFARSHARIF S/O. SHAHEBLAL SHAIKH,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (NOW NILL),
R/O: CHICHALI VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELGAUM.
2. MRS. SHIMRANDEVI W/O. JAGADISHSINGH BANA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIRJI BAG SOCIETY, NEAR SMRUTI
MANDIR,. NIGAM ROAD, GHODASIR,
AHMADABAD, GUJARAT STATE.
3. VRL LOGISTICS LTD.,
GIRIRAJ ANNEX, CIRCUIT HOUSE,.
HUBLI - 581 207.
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VITHAL S TELI, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:09-08-2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2785/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, RAIBAG,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,95,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
3
THESE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal and cross objection, the challenge is laid both by the insurance company and the claimant to the judgment and award dated 09.08.2011 rendered by the M.A.C.T., Raibag in M.V.C.No.2785/2005 whereby an award is made for a compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- in all, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition.
2. The accident and the resultant injury to the claimant are not in dispute in these Appeal and Cross Objection. The grievance of the insurance company is that, the plea of contributory negligence has not been duly appreciated by the MACT and therefore, there is a grave legal lacunae which vitiate the award. The counsel for the cross objector-claimant argues and I think rightly that the case is one under Section 163-A which is enacted on "no fault liability theory" as held by the Apex Court in the case 4 of Sunilkumar reported in AIR 2017 SC 5710. Therefore, this contention fails.
3. The counsel for the insurance company next contended that the claimant himself has stated that his monthly wages were Rs.5,000/- including batta and therefore, the statutory limit being Rs.40,000/- annually, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction at all and the Tribunal could not have scaled it down to acquire one. This aspect has been considered by this Court in the case of The Manager, ICICII Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Mangala and others in M.F.A.No.128/2011 (MV) decided on 02.01.2017, holding that irrespective of the claim made by the injured, it is the Tribunal which has to decide what the wages he was earning and therefore, the MACT has jurisdiction. Consequently, this contention also fails.
4. The learned counsel for the insurance company next contends that the MACT has awarded a sum of 5 Rs.25,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering'. He points out from the provisions of Schedule 2 to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, that the Parliament has employed the expression "injuries" as contradistinguished from "injury" and therefore, the amount stated in the said schedule i.e. Rs.5,000/- should be treated as the maximum amount of compensation collectively payable for all the injuries.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that a pedantic way of interpretation, sought to be placed on a social welfare legislation would defeat it's object. He points out from the very Schedule itself that the Parliament while enacting the schedule as part of the Act did not intend to Rs.5,000/- to be the maximum limit on the compensation payable for all the injuries, collectively. He rightly submits that if that were to be the intent of the law-maker a provision accordingly could have been introduced in the very schedule itself. 6
6. The counsel for the claimant further submits that merely because the schedule employs the word "Injuries" one cannot lead to a conclusion that the said compensation cannot exceed Rs.5,000/- for all the injuries put together. I find a lot of legal sense in this submission. Therefore, I hold that Rs.5,000/- mentioned in the schedule is the maximum compensation payable for each of the injuries and not collectively.
7. The counsel for the Respondent submits that in the claim petition, what is stated as his income is Rs.5,000/- including the daily bhatta whereas the MACT has taken it to be Rs.3,000/-. He points out that there is no reason to scale down the income of the claimant below what is prescribed by the Parliament as the maximum when there is sufficient material supporting the same. The Tribunal is an expert body inasmuch as day in and day out it adjudicates similar cases. It has accumulated wisdom which it has employed in this case. Therefore, the 7 claimant's Cross Objection is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, I make the following:
ORDER The Appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and so also the Cross Objection of the claimant.
The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transferred to the jurisdictional MACT for being released to the claimants at the earliest.
Costs made easy.
SD/-
JUDGE Naa