Case: New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ranglal Punju Nikam

( 2 ) THE present appeal being by Insurance company, henceforth for the sake of convenience and brevity, we shall refer to the parties as claimant, owner and Insurance company. Present respondent No. 1. was the petitioner before the Tribunal and he is the claimant/person injured in the accident in question. Present respondent No. 3 is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The accident in question took place on 19th August, 1997 at about 7. 30 p. m. The claimant is a Lawyer by profession. At the material time, he was travelling along with shri K. D. Patil, Chairman of the MaharashtraAgricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited and one Dinkar dayaram Patil to Aurangabad for the purpose of attending a case pertaining to the said Bank in the High Court. Present respondent No. 2 was the driver of the vehicle. It is contended that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver, as a result of which it slipped away from the road, turned turtle and fell in a ditch. Petitioner suffered severe injuries including fracture of right side thigh bone. He was initially admitted in a hospital at Parola and then shifted to Jalgaon in the hospital of Dr. Pratap jadhav and ultimately he was also required to take some treatment at J. J. Hospital, Bombay. On three occasions, he was subjected to surgical treatment. Even after treatment, he has suffered permanent disability. He is unable to bend his right leg which is now become marginally short. Petitioner was aged 50 years at the time of accident. He has been practising in the courts at Parola, Dhule, Amalner and Jalgaon on Civil, Criminal, Revenue andsides. Due to prolonged treatment, his legal practice was adversely affected. He also could not pay attention to his agricultural land. Consequently, petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.. He had also expressed willingness to pay Additional Court fee in the event, the Tribunal was pleased to award higher amount of compensation.( 3 ) OWNER and driver, in spite of service, did not file any written statement. The petition was mainly contested by the Insurance company, which denied the claim of the claimant in toto for want of information and requested that the claimant be put to strict proof of all the allegations, without raising any specific4 ) HEARD respective Counsel for respective parties.

Court's reasoning:
We are, therefore, not inclined to uphold the contention of the lawyers of owner and the claimant that such a proposition cannot be considered, because it is raised for the first time in this first16 ) REFERRING to policy atin the record of the Tribunal, it was pointed out by learned Counsel for the insurance company that a premium of Rs. 100/is paid by the insured underunder which Personal accident benefits upto Rs. 50,000/for 4 passengers, including the driver, can be conferred upon the insured. The Text ofis made available for ready reference (marked x ). Total liability of the insurance company towards passengers, due to payment of extra premium of Rs. 100/is Rs. 50,000/and as perpersonal accident benefits are 100% of it in case of death or loss of sight of both eyes, physical separation of two entire hands or two entire legs or loss of one hand + one leg or one eye + one hand or one leg. In case of total and irrecoverable loss of use of hand or foot without physical separation, liability extends to 50%. Although it is the case of claimant that he suffered fracture of leg, it is not a case of total separation but a case of total irrecoverable loss of use of a leg. The liability of insurance company, therefore, shall be 50% of rs. 50,000/i. e. Rs. 25,000/17 ) THE appeal of insurance company will therefore have to be allowed accordingly.