SBCMA No.1752/2006
Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.
1
SBCMA No.1752/2006
Bhagwat Singh
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 18.9.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.GL Choudhary, for the appellant.
Mr.RK Mehta, for the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant’s grievance is that the tribunal awarded
less damages on account of non-production of X-ray report
to prove the fracture suffered by the appellant and,
therefore, the award dated 25th April, 1998 passed in Claim
Case no.46/1995 may be enhanced appropriately. The
appellant submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC seeking permission to produce additional evidence.
The appellant annexed X-ray report obtained from the
Government Bangar Hospital, Pali to show that appellant
SBCMA No.1752/2006
Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.
2
suffered two fracture in one hand and one fracture in
second hand and also suffered dislocation.
According to learned counsel for the appellant the
said documents could not have been produced by the
appellant because of lack of knowledge as well as because
of the reason that he was not properly advised. He also
relied upon the injury report produced in the tribunal to
show that the doctor advised X-ray and on next day i.e., on
13th June, 1995 itself in Government hospital he was X-
rayed and there were fractures as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance
Company submitted that the appellant did not produce the
said X-ray report before the tribunal and has submitted an
application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC after inordinate
delay. It is also submitted that there is maximum limit for
grant of compensation in a case where grievous injury is
caused as per the Schedule under Section 163A appended
to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
It is true that appellant has produced the documents
SBCMA No.1752/2006
Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.
3
after delay but looking to the genuineness and credibility of
the documents as issued by the Government Hospital, Pali,
the delay in filing the application by the appellant cannot
come in the way of the appellant particularly, in a case
where the claimant is victim of accident and suffered
fractures in both the hands. Therefore, the application filed
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed and the documents
are taken on record.
So far as compensation is concerned, the appellant
was granted total compensation of Rs.10,350/- only, but it
is clear from the impugned award dated 25.4.1998 that the
appellant has not been granted any compensation on
account of his suffering grievous injury. As per Schedule,
the appellant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- for each grievous
injury. In this case, the appellant suffered three fractures,
two in one hand and one in another hand and one injury of
dislocation. Therefore, looking to the facts of the case,
appellant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- for
each fracture amounting to Rs.15,000/-and Rs.2500/- for
SBCMA No.1752/2006
Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.
4
dislocation.
In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is
allowed. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.17,500/-. The
appellant shall also be entitled for interest on the @ 9% per
annum from the date of award passed by the tribunal.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-