^ i:<- ^c^ ^ Bi THB HiBH COURT 0» JEUMEA'ffiItE AT BIL^PCTEtelO.l :Miti (AWEAt,VAEUa»ArR8.JS^3.Aflflb^ A^EAfc tfflffiat. SEC'HGWt'73 ( T^ MQffiQKWSfiC£E&*eTJl%S. y-^^w @iCTMCTaEaWTl ).t) ZtS XilsBiEaacie eeE.JThiaaagte Biwxsi.oBs2, •Of£iee,::; B-l .! . TaB^ Coia^>a.ex Ri-ngr Roatt ho.l, BtlaspHr (C.G.) VERS®& t^lafe SCT ^i ;t^ ^£2^.Sty.^^Trasatd. ®^t?a':_S^®' Saia^shcay Qwpts ^liaMnan , K.i.rana.'i ,;.SfeQi;6t,.,|| 'Aatqipur , ,Distt.»-aBappu£^: m.s'} . :'1.'::' ••':' ••!] ^^ Holtsnlal ftaaa^eo S/ec P^~ ftEtteyEaa I'lan«|s@ &?®- :Near •,;eaiBhepH^i:;.tSE'lB(aaR^' S-cfaooi.,. £®rtn:fcy Bilaspur (C.(3.) B^5fe|K.--'::yji:ll| f/ \-^ SEaaKGOIBKtQ^MS^^SF^^dWS^SSLKWSISt. DIvistoa Bencb: Hon'bla SIitt I. M. Ouddhirt<» Hdn'ble Sla-I atarindnk IBRihaa SIutiwtaro.^oSJ, APPByANT M.A No.83lof 3006 National fcsuranee Company Ltd. Versus Motllal Soiil & Ors. Aopearance: Shn Dashrath Gupta, counset for the appeHant/IiKiirance eompaay. Sbri Ashok Soiii, counsdl for respondent N6.1. Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel forTespondents No. 2 & 3. And M.A (Ct Ito. 18Sofa006 AByBUANT SSSPO StT3 MotiLalSoni Ver»n» Mohan Lal Namdeo & Ors. Am>eal»u/8 173 trf'tlie Motor VehlcIeaAct, t98» . .< ABDearande: - . ' ' Shri Ashok Soiii, coimsel for Uie appellant Sliri Rahul MIshra, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Dashrafh Gupta, counsel for respmideat No.a/faswmice .Company. aSOSESt (Qral) (Passed on this 4dl day ofMay, 2011) Perl. M. Qudduai, J. 1. M.A. No. 531 of 2006 & M.A. (C) No.185 of2006 are beu% decided t»ythis common (Hxler as (he app^Iants to bGittiafli!® appeals have filed (heir respective appeal ^^uiist SapugDed^ •!tft'jt^:;...t.i.3'.;.:^ ^ 't^. award dated 30.11.2Q05 passed by^ fhe Member, Motor Accadent Claims Tribunal (FTC), Pendca-Road, ia Glaim C^se No.22/2004. 2. M.A. No. 531 of 2006 has been filed ty flie appeUant/Insiu-ance company against (te iiapugned awapd ddted 30.11.2005, a^rieved ty fhe liabUity pmt imposed upon It and M.A. (C) No. 185 of 2006 has beaa filed by the claimant for enhancemCTit of amount of compensatlon ta respect of fhe same award dated 30.11.2005. 3. The brifif facts of fhecase are th^<to 19.3.2004, Motilal, applicaat/elaimaat hi clalm petttion, was domg agricuttural work near Teekarkala Igrpassroaid at 10:30 a-m. AttibesMae time, an overloadal tructe beartag registration No. C.G. 10 Z B 0528 was passmg through'the saine road, whlchwas being driffCTt l^-'Mohanlal/naD-aiqiltesffit No.2 ta tte claim petttton. Tyne of that truck biirst and spread to dlfl'ereiat parte. ScMne of the parts struck (he appMcant -Motilal, as a result, he sustaiaed InjiBies. It was the case of fhe appUcant/claimant before the Cteims TribunaJ fhat because of that aixadeat, he becaiaedisabledpennana'ifly. •;4, ^ AppUcant-Motflal flled actoim petttion under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 piereta^ter Befared to as"the Act 0/J98S) before fhe Motor Acadent Claims Tribuna4clatoata8^ compensation ofRs. 19,60,000/- under various hfiato. t^l »^!;.. :'BaBssai& ( '» ^ -^ v^ 5. The claiinant- injured obtatoed a cCT'tificate ifor (UsatdUly, but, in fliat certifteatie, tt has beea ineiittoned 11^;; fhe assessment r^arding dlsabilily is to be made eweiy 6 siaaa and the disability was a temporaiy disabillty. Thedoctctt' Ims also not been examined in respect ofthe sanie. 6. The appellant ^nsurance Compaxry ia M.A. 531/06 ;has contended that (he or^aal driwu^ Bcence was ^se as ttwas not issued flum Jhansi (U.P.), theTefore, ttie renewal of the same, inade at BUaspur was also baseless. He sutmiitstfaat the renewal ofthe fake Mcence caimot to^ tteated as vaBd. 7. In fhe case of IlaUonal InsuaaBce Cto. Ltd. »^ SinuEaa Slagh and Oithers, (2004) 3 Suptcme Gourt GtuwSSSiy, flie Honble Apex Court observed fhus: "Where theebiw's Uceneelsfwundto bsfaks 92. K viay be true as Uas beai eoatended ua behalf of the petttiona- that a fake or foi^ed licence is as gwsdssno llcence but fhe questtont herem, as noticed heFeinbefare, 1s wtaether ttie insiirer inust provethat the ownepwas gtri^of the willful breach of flie conditions of (h» insuranee poBey QT ftie contraGt of insarance. ' In Lehru oase llie matter has been c<aisider^ in.some detall. We are ta general agreemCTit with fhe approach of fhe Bench but we mtend "'••... .- ' . '. • .' • ' ' -: •..•..-... -''. to point out that theobservationsmadetfaeEeJn must be understood to have toeen saade ta fhe llght of the requifcements of fhe law fe teiiBS whereoif the UISUTCT 1s to estatrilsfa^ iidUfijlj breach on fhe part af fhe tosured and not for '^ST i/'^-sis^ .^. •••• '^ &&„-. 4 ^ 'v-'h fhe purpose of its disentitleD^ent ftnm rmdrag any defence or for the ownCTS to be absolved EKan scny liataHty whatsoever. We wouM b® dealfa^ in some detaU wttfa fMs aspect af QSK mattera Uttle later.1' 8. Leamed counsel fiw fhe appelteat -tosurance Compaay has further eontended that the vehide which aet nrath aecident was overloaded and, fherefore, (he Insiirance Com^uiy is not liable to pay any compensation. A perusal of the re^steatii ..^- certiflcate of fhe vehfcle l.e truck shows tte wait as 6,2(X) itg without load, and 16200 Isg wifh^load, therefore, fhe r ' painissible Umit to load fhe goods ta fhe tFUGk was 10000 1%. i.e 10 tones. The Tribuiial Kas gmen its findfe^ttaat fhe load was to between 9-10 tons. 'FheFefore, it eaiuiot be said fhat fhe teuck was overloaded. 9. The Tribunal has not coaducted a propCT eaqinry re^rdtag permanent disabiIKy offhe claimant-injuced and decided t&e elaiBBi petttton as If fhe same was a dml si.itt. How»rer, &e law casts a duly upon tfae Tribuiial to coaiduet jmQper enqiury as provlded imder Sections 168 & 169 of tfae Act of 1988 and Rifle 226 of the Madhya Ftedesla/CMiatti^pifa. Motpr Vehieles Rutes, 1994. Hon'Me tfae Supreme ©ourtin ^ ^ ^ fhe case R^ Riuaar Wfc J^i^ Knmar, reparted ia IVj|201<^ Aecldent & eoanpcaisatton Caaea A1S basAfiId tej'swa 8 that fhe Tiibunal shoulA not ntechsadEaMsE a%^ B» percentage of pa"mmient dlsaNltty as fhe pCTeentage of .,,-*"^k. / &f'i :l:t 'S5, ''?. i f "^. •< ----^. ^ ^ • economiclossorlosscrfeaniii%capad^.Ithasl>e^tt3Blt E •^•' •• •• ' . .' •.. • •' held Iii Para II r^arding enqutiy into iSre elaim for deaddtog Just compensation^ wlricfa te quoted b^ow: ''ll.The Trib'uaal slio'uikl not be a sfflent StiMrtatsr wlien medteal cndMice is teBdeced m awaard to fl»aafflcfes and fheir effix^ in partfoular the cxtent of n^^ dlsabilitv. Sec&ns, 1 smd 169 of fh.e, Act aMfee ft evidMrt ithjat fhe 'FlibTOaEd, does _not_ft!ac^^^flsLS- Beuteal utawre as aa a ci^ tmt as aa aetiBe ~-^nz~:l ^plarw aaid S^l'EerofLjbn^ ^roijB^i^^ aua increurv' into tto daaBa' fer detecBunaa:JHto_,*h t caBmQea!^a»^.'Sbe_3vj^a^j^ M'^x^tice^ite^m:L •r:'-"- :' «:tiveBole to ascertaia tte true aad GQCTectooMtfoaiso that it can assess (te lust coaiBensation'. WM& ~i.—:—- ,, dealiafi with. Tiassonal miurv eaaes. Sas JTsSaivB3sQ.. ^ sboaM _BBeferabibf ecnuD itsetf •wilii a' tfeiacM Dfctkmar? aod a Haaadfeocdt fe- CT^hwtitai M •Bcxmsmes^ vibsrwi^ 'bBwwaEmei^ w exaas^^^^^^^^ Mauuat fiw BvalMattnn of ^namleBt Ftef^eal . Isssa^axst Sor Os^tmeQsB Swswfvas. tuetwced lw» Americaa Aead^av 6f Or(hoocd«3- Sssseestms BV ila Indian eauwalient or offaer aiaUKa'teed teatsl for; uaderstanidinKtiiemed*catevidea<»aEadaMessia tl>&,; Elavsical and fuactioaai disabfljte. Tiaa'Rflniaatmffic ateo teep ia view•tto fixst sclicdidfe to (he Vtai'lcBaen's ^ eoiapeasataai Act, 1923 whfefll gtoes-smae-airilteiattete about fh e?Efeiitcrfpa'n»aeBt^dterf»UtytodiifeBBrt^ types of^iajurfes, ia the case of'Wtataneai. Ifa Doetsm-: - 'giwii^ evidcnce. uses teclmlcal aredaeaa tenia^ •Qie; Tra»wiaLshQ<^matinctUaa-to;stateiaadaM;k»a..te,-. siaaple lUMi'^nedkri tan^ •the natau«and fhK'cfiBscfeof' ' fhe injury. If a doctor gnws evidence aboiUt ihc pereeatage ofpennaneirt<lisabiltt)f,fhe I'ribaaaM^ •to scek c}arifl<^axn as to .ydie(hfet"su^ pwceat^& ^ disabiMty is -fhe lyactfoaaltUsabBi^ witik/M body or•nAetttertt is eaty witto; iB^aBence; to a •til. it t :l!J. /' ^ 'ft!-.- '^' '•--.^ \-^ limb. If tttc peseent^e of penpanent disabiffiy is • stated wifh. r^erence ta a limb, ttie TribiiBaliril Ita»e to seck fhe doctor'a opinion as to whetfaer tt is possflalc to deduce fhe correspaadii^ fimetional pennaneat disability wxth refia-ence to (he whote body siad if so the pCTeentage.* (BmphB^ssutiBitod) 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove and wtth the vlew that the clajimant should not be deprived of his le^timate claim, we are of ttie opinlon tfaat.fhe matter tequiFes re- consideiation at tto end of ffae TWbimal. Thertfore, we M. A. No.531/06 in part, set-aside fce Impugned award dated 30.11.2005 mid remit back ttie inatter to fhe Tribunal to conduct fhorou^i enquuy, if required, police vraifflcatton report should also be obtamed and thereafter»deeistoa stoalt be made afl^esh in the Mglit of fhe obsenreitions mad< herelnabove. 11. Needless to mentton that flie parties stmll be aBowed to amend (heir pleadiags, adduce ftulher CTidCTioe s®riata support of thdr pleadingsand may fite ftnfller docmnents and get the docunacaits venfied ete. Thereafter, fte decteion shaU be made by fhe Tribunal on mCTlts. ^2. Sinoe we have remanded the matter to the Tribuxml for decision afl^esh, MJL ^yto. 185/06 be<x»mes ixifi'uctuous. , AccoTdingly, M.A. (C^ No. 185/06 is sdlMnfesedas liawtog wtiecoine infi-actuous. a% . ^ f ' ys ~':'»u ^^^^y <$. 't-i, 13. If fli^ aaiouat of (^mpfltMatioii te atoea^r ia d'qpe»It, ttoe same shaH be kept in the flxed deposit in a Natioiia&aed Bank for a peiiod of six monfhs extendatfle flrom tte totiaie till (he deetsioaofthe claim peattonafiiesh. However, ittease, amount of the compensation or any part thCTerf Ims be^i paid to tlie elaimant QF wlttidrawn, tite same shaU nottoe recovered tfll fresh deelsloa 1s made. 14. ThelowCT Courtsrecords sbaM be sent backfcrthwith. 15. The parttes shaU appear befoi® the Clateis T^lbiaial ieaacemed QQ l^.niae, 20I"3t. c 16. No orderas to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge