^-?v-^ \. ^y/^ j HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Q No. 1245 of 2008 APPELLANT Ku. Sapna Sigade. (Claimant) Versus RESPONDENTS Jasbeer Singh and others. AWARD For consideration Q -9-2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Hon?ble Shri Justice Rajeev Gupta _J_ Sd/- Chief Justice Post for pronouncement of Award: ^ -9-2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^IliSSiSSSSSI^ J/ ^y z HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS M.A. (Cl No. 1245/2008 Ku. Sapna Sigade, aged about 19 years, D/o Shri Raoji Sigade, R/o Srishti Colony, 68 Kamla College Road, Kaurinbhatha, Rajnandgaon and C-1/7, S.B.I. Colony, Sector-8, Bhilai, (C.G.) Versus 1. Jasbeer Singh, S/o Kartar Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Near Dharamkanta, Village Kumhari Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver) 2. Smt. Ravinder Kaur, W/o Shri Gurpreet Singh, aged about 20 years, R/o Sector 6, Street No.60, House No.3-C, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Owner) 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Akash Ganga Premises, Power House Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer) DB: Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. and Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Shri M.K.Bhaduri, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3 AWARD ( ^.09.2011) ( ; 1 Per N.K.Aearwal, J. 1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') in ^~) motor accidents claim case No. 01/2004 vide award dated 25th March, 2008. As against compensation of Rs.46,00,000/- claimed by the appellant Ku. Sapna Singade by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 06.10.2002, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment, against respondents No.l & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration C.G. 07 ZC 1151 exonerating respondent No.S/the National Insurance Company Limited from its liability to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck in question by respondent No.l; the appellant sustained multiple injuries in the said accident; respondent No.S/the National Insurance Company Limited not liable for payment of compensation on account of non-payment of premium (due to dishonored cheque); awarded Rs.75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the learned Tribunal has erred in not directing respondent No.S/the National Insurance Company Limited to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover it from the owner and driver of the i // offending vehicle; and in awarding low compensation ofRs.75,000/-. 5 . On the other hand, Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.S/the National Insurance Company Limited would submit: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent No.3 from its liability to pay compensation. He would further submit, the amount awarded cannot be termed as inadequate and the award impugned does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. We shall first examine whether or not the Tribunal has erred in not directing respondent No.3/the National Insurance Company Limited to first pay the amount of compensation to the appellant/claimant and then recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 8. Indisputably, on payment of Rs.6244/- as premium vide cheque No. 164278 dated 19.08.2002 of the Bhilair Nagarik Sahakari Bank Mariyadit, Bhilainagar, respondent No.3 has issued policy Ex.D.2. The said cheque was presented for encashment. The Bank by its letter dated 21.08.2002 issued a "return memo" disclosing dishonour of the cheque with the remarks "insufficient funds". The respondent No.3 thereupon cancelled the policy of insurance and communicated the above information to insured Smt. Manjit Kaur, the then owner of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute, ^^"^w^ s J/ ^•;-^'.^ r^ the accident had occurred on 06.10.2002 i.e. much after communication of cancellation of the policy. 9. In the case of Deddappa and others vs. Branch Manager^ National Insurance Company Limited, (2008) 2 SCC 595, after considering the entire law on the subject, the Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 24 and 25 -of its judgment as under: "24. We are not oblivious of the distinction between the statutory liability of the insurance company vis-a-vis a third party in the context of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and its liabilities in other cases. But the same liabilities arising under a contract of insurance would have to be met if the contract is valid. If the contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated thereabout, we are of the opinion, the insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim.w 25. A beneficial legislation as is well known should not be construed in such a manner so as to bring within its ambit a benefit which was not contemplated by the legislature to be given to the party. In Regional Director, ESI Corpn. v. Ramanuja Match Industries,(1985) 1 SCC 218, this Court held: "10.......We do not doubt that beneficial legislations should have liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but where such beneficial legislation has r a scheme of its own there is no warrant for the Court to travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretcxt of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered by the scheme/' We, therefore, agree with the opinion of the High Court". 10. The ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case referred hereinabove is squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal has not erred in exonerating respondent No.S/the National Insurance Company Limited from its liability to pay compensation as well as in not directing it to first pay the amount of compensation to the appellant and then to recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. 11. Now, we shall examine sufficiency or otherwise of the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 12. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- for permanent disability, Rs.15,000/- for medical expenses on the basis of actual bills produced in the case, Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs.7000/- for pain & suffering and special diet and Rs.3000/- for loss of studies and thus has awarded total sum ofRs.75,000/- as compensation. 13. As per the injury reports, the appellant/claimant sustained right leg injury. As per Dr. R.R.Mandle (A.W.3) due to stiffness in the joint, the appellant 14. 15. 16. sustained disability to the extent of 30% which can be reduced by 5 to 10 per cent. It is not out of place to mention here, Dr. Mandle was not treating Doctor and disability assessed by him was not disability of the whole body. Further, admittedly 75% of medical expenses have already been reimbursed by Department of father of the claimant i.e. Shri Raoji Sigade. The appellant/claimant herself, in her statement para 9, has stated that her injury was cured but its effect is persisting in her mind. The compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the contest of above broad features of the case and in the light of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. AJay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, in our opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate. For the foregoing, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge