_ ; ' ‘ ..... \ ‘ I Thoma; maimant ged about 30 R/c LIG 170 § Apoeliantr_ . A versus Repondents \ g ‘ 1 . ' ' Non-Anglicants” ‘ ‘ _ ' alpur Tah . ’, R & ’ ’ ' ‘ , ‘ r _ > V Misceuaneous Agg‘eal go.) No 43 bf 2006 K Appeii'a‘nt _ _ * The Onenta! inaurance Company N.A.3 _ ‘ ‘ Llmned DO il Second Floor Chawaia '. . y ‘ Complex Samagar Devendra Nagar Marg, Raipur (C G) ' I versus Resgondents ' ' 1.: Buoo Thomas aged about 30 year" f _ S/o MT Thoma s s f “ "“ T _ § ‘ , ‘ " Pnt . rese ‘ o hn 12612006 S C Verma and coimsel for respondentN; forthe a peHan 1 In M m A M;A.(C. (C) N . K Athaley counsel for¢the appeilant In 1 p f d f o ts ‘ ( ) 2006 pears an ar or other respondent responden N m M A (C) No 126/2006 ‘ omen Passed on 19 ofSeptembé T ) N he his common order sha” govern MA (cg o 126/2006 fried by t msaron and M A (C ) o 43/2006 fled by the Insurance company for right to recover comensati ppeiantlclaimant for enhancement of co warded from the o 3 r i r 1 h n rcie bearing Registratio e owner and driver of the offendm ve NCG o (2) Th g -04/8011 did not appear desprte notices being Issued as ucaon being made In the local Hmdr Newspaper Nava Bharat" vrd order dated 03 O5 2007 Smce both were ex part jloefore the Xlth Addrtlo otor Accrdents Claims Tribunal F TC Ralpur hencef nal" e MACT urther notrce was drsensed wrt 3 () co h pps " A earned counsel for the ppeant/claiman as also for th sr mpany ave admitted the followmg facts in both aeal O 2 l por n 3 07-2003 the appellant-caimant Buu Thomas suervrs Sy Automobiles Mahoba Bazar was aing trial o ew Marutr Van With a proposed purchaser Near the o rige at Mahoba Baza e respondent ayakwad drove the Mahendr Jee o C G -04-/8011 in a rash and ent manne A r a N S t o.” ) A ' A C ( r 200?) al pent ‘ N pon a wner /A also pbhh “ e M (orth 'th ), f p h L allt e Inuance () l m k Rarpur tk f r n ve bd r th No ' G a V N (B) The M A C T has awarded total compensation of Rs 73 400 against the Insurance company placmg rehance on New India x ‘ " _ Assurance Co Ltd vs Rula and others (2000) 3 Supreme _ Caurt Cases 195 as aiso - 'lnderjrt vKaur, r1998) 1 S.C.C‘-371 nd held that although the 4A/8011 issued by, the» , i‘nsurance ‘compan’y'was‘canceiled d e to the cheque tOWards ‘ premium issued by‘ the insured havi g been dish‘onoured on' 19-06-2003 the Insura‘nce, compjny was liable to pay \ policy of insurance of Jeep No.CG- compensation § i ,l" (4) Shri S. C. Verma, ,learned counsel for thie‘ appellant-claimant has J urged that the claimant had suffered 30% permahent disability in the 'right‘ l leg, and therefore the compensation awarded by the MACT Is on the lower Side lt was also submitted that the MACT did not award compensation under the conventional heads of specual diet dunng treatment as also the, cost of attendant during hospitalization (5) On the other hand Shri AKAthaley, learned counsel for the insurance company solely urged that in View of the fact that the insured had ‘ ' ' not paid the premium on the policy issued the insurance company ought to have been given the right to recover compensation from the owner of the Jeep bearing Registration NoCG-04 N8011 Shri A K Athaley, learned 7 counsel for the insurance company did not assail the finding that in View of " “ the dictum of Apex Court in The Onental Insurance Co Ltd vs Indeiylt Kaur (supra) and New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Rui‘a and others (supra), the insurance company was liable to pay compensation No oth omt was take p n 5 {)} mpugned awa .‘i r Havmg conSIdered the rival sub isswns "t hu he statement of Dr G S Bach l- * ’ The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs 4 ’ l e ‘ er; ' ‘ " ' by the M.A.C.T. on 18-04-2006. It is peninent' o note that ’the accident occuned on 2307-2003. The claimant did not ex mine the doctor who had treated titm Dr 'G S Bachhu A W2 had admi ed i‘n para-2 of his cross ‘ examination that he was not the treating doctor and had first seen th appeitant—ctaimant Buu Thomas on 10 03 2006 Ie almost 2 & 4/é years afte the date of acoldent He also admat‘ed that aithothgh he was a member o Medical Board yet before Issumg the certificate he did not seek opmron of other members. It was atso submitted by,» Dr. Baohchu; A.W.-2 that the t certificate ‘of permanent disabitity issued by him’ was not oLthei/Medicat Board . treating doctor and the nature of testimony of Dr Bachchu (AW -2) in my consrdered opinion no ground is made out to enhance the sum ofr ‘ Rs 40 000/- awarded by the MACT towards loss of income The <compensation shown in para 8 under conventional heads ie speCIal dietx . uring treatment as also towards cost of attendant is also commensurat d e rth the facts of the ca \w se. (9)1 r onsidering the fact that the appellant-claimant was e ' r t f v ”c (7) The MACT has awarded compensation as uhder: Heads Vi ‘ ’Amount in Rs. Expenses incurred towards treatment‘ , ‘ , 28,400. Towards Ioss of income , 40,000 Towards pain and suffering, ‘ 5,000 , Tote! = . ‘ . 73.400 .(8) Considering the fact that the appetiant—ctaimant dtd not examine the , ‘ period of 10 days )it appearsiproper to award an additional sum of Rs 2 500/- towards cost of at‘endant and Rs 2 500i- towards specaal diet ln thrs View of \ ”the matter the compensation awarded by the MACT deserves to be enharzced by R$.5,000/-. / * (‘l O) The only point that requtres conslderation ts whether the insurance company ought to have been given the right to recover compensatron from > Lhe owner of Jeep bearing Regrstratlon No C G‘ 04-N8011 Consrdenng the fact that the MACT has held that the pohcy of Insurance was canceiled by the ‘ x insurer on 19 06 2003 re prior to the accident due to non payment of \ premium the MACT ought to have given the right to the insurance company . to recover compensation from the owner of Jeep bearing Registration No C G 04 A18011 (11) In the result, both the appeals, i'.-e;, M.A.( C.) No.126/2006 and M,A.(C.) No.43l2006 are altowed. Compensation awarded by the MACT is enhancedt to Rs.78 400I- After adjustmq the compensatron already L depoSItecl if any, the Insurance company shall deposn the remalnmg compensation Withm a period of 30 days from today, farlrng whfch tt shall “ also be lrable to pay Interest @ 8 5% per annum from the date of applicatron » till reahzatron The Insurance company may Inmate executton proceedmgs to recover the compensation pard by It from the owner of the Jee Tumae 1 n p