Case: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. R. Swaminathan &amp; Others

with an accident with another bus insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. As a result of the said accident, there were serious injuries sustained by the claimant resulting in amputation of the right hand. The claimant filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?), Namakkal and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- alleging negligence on the part of the drivers of both the buses. The Tribunal made an award of compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- under the following heads:Medical expensesRs. 40,000/- DisabilityRs. 1,25,000/- Pain & sufferingsRs. 1,00,000/- Future treatmentRs. 1,85,000/- The appellant Insurance Company appealed against the award of the Tribunal along with the owner of the other bus that was involved in the accident. Another appeal was also filed by respondent No. 3 denying its liability in the matter. The learned Single Judge of the High Court interfered with the Award and reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest at 12% from date of the petition.3. Apparently the first respondent claimant was satisfied with the Tribunal?s Award as he did not file any appeal thereagainst to the High Court. Nonetheless, being aggrieved by the Single Judge?s judgment, the claimant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. This appeal was allowed and by the impugned judgment the High Court has awarded total compensation amounting to Rs. 7,44,000/- under different heads with a direction for payment of interest at 18% from the date of petition. The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved thereby and is in appeal before us.4. The issue that arises in this case is, whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in increasing the compensation amount beyond the amount awarded by the Tribunal despite the fact that the Award of the Tribunal was not at all challenged by the claimant. The only reason given by the Division Bench of the High Court for doing so is:?In this connection, we may observe that we are aware of the fact that we are enhancing the compensation even though the injured has not claimed it. But, the question is covered by catena of decisions justifying enhancement of compensation even if cases where the injured has not preferred an appeal, provided the circumstances of the case warrants the same.?To say the least, this was a very facial way of interfering with the award when no interference was called for. We called upon the learned Counsel on both sides to show us at least one case (out of the catena of judgments referred to in the impugned judgment) in support of this proposition. Learned Counsel frankly confessed that there was none. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in Banarsi v. Ram Phal, reported in II (2003) SLT 258=(2003) 9 SCC 606 , which supports the proposition that in an appeal filed by the defendant laying challenge to the grant a smaller relief, the plaintiff as a respondent cannot seek a higher relief if he had not filed an appeal on his own or had not taken any cross-objection. In the present appeal it would appear that the claimant neither appealed against the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal, nor filed any cross-objection in the first appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Thus, we are satisfied that the Division Bench of the High Court wholly erred in increasing the compensation amount beyond the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 5. We have been taken through the records by learned Counsel on both sides. While the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards ?medical expenses?, the learned Single Judge has quashed this award under this head on the ground that the medical expenses of the claimant were met by his employer. This position is not controverted by the learned Counsel for the claimant before us. Under the head of ?pain and suffering?, while the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- the learned Single Judge has reduced it to Rs. 30,000/-. We are not satisfied that there is any justifiable reason to make such a reduction nor do we see any reasoning in support, in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We are, therefore, satisfied that the payment under this head needs to be retained as in the Award of the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under the head of ?permanent disability? is Rs. 1,25,000/- in the Award of the Tribunal. Having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not see any justifiable reason to reduce it to Rs. 75,000/-, nor is the learned Counsel for the appellant able to satisfy us on this count. We are of the view that there was no justification to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal except under the head of ?medical expenses?. 6. In the result, we hold that the compensation to be awarded to the claimant first respondent shall be as under: Medical expensesNil Future medical expensesRs. 1,85,000/- Pain & sufferingsRs. 1,00,000/- Permanent disabilityRs. 1,25,000/- TotalRs. 4,10,000/- This amount shall be payable to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition. 7. As far as the apportionment of the liability is concerned, it would appear that the judgment of the Single Judge is justified as the appeal CMA No. 699/92 filed by the State Transport Corporation was allowed and the award against them was set aside. The Single Judge was justified in holding that the negligence was entirely attributable to the driver of the bus No. TCE 8199, which was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company.8. In the result, we hold that the appellant shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate 12% per annum from the date of the first respondent?s claim petition till realization thereof, after setting off there from any amount already paid by the Insurance Company.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]While the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 40,000/l expenses?, the learned Single Judge has quashed this award under this head on the ground that the medical expenses of the claimant were met by his employer. This position is not controverted by the learned Counsel for the claimant before us. Under the head ofand suffering?, while the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/the learned Single Judge has reduced it to Rs.We are not satisfied that there is any justifiable reason to make such a reduction nor do we see any reasoning in support, in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We are, therefore, satisfied that the payment under this head needs to be retained as in the Award of the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under the head ofdisability? is Rs. 1,25,000/in the Award of the Tribunal. Having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not see any justifiable reason to reduce it to Rs.nor is the learned Counsel for the appellant able to satisfy us on this count. We are of the view that there was no justification to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal except under the head of. As far as the apportionment of the liability is concerned, it would appear that the judgment of the Single Judge is justified as the appeal CMA No. 699/92 filed by the State Transport Corporation was allowed and the award against them was set aside. The Single Judge was justified in holding that the negligence was entirely attributable to the driver of the bus No. TCE 8199, which was insured by theCompany.8. In the result, we hold that the appellant shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/as compensation together with interest at the rate 12% per annum from the date of the first respondent?s claim petition till realization thereof, after setting off there from any amount already paid by the Insurance Company.