In my opinion, the submissions cannot be accepted. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a number of decisions that the second schedule contains a number of fallacies. It has to be followed in broad principles. In suitable cases where treatment is long or loss is heavy, the compensation cannot be kept confined within the limits prescribed by the second schedule. The law on the point is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra MANU/SC/1154/1996 : 1996 (4) SCC 362. The decision in Trilok Chandra's case [supra] has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Saroj & Ors. MANU/SC/0988/2009 : 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 431. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by learned Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
{Para 4}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 3874 of 2013 [O&M]
Decided On: 26.07.2013
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kulwinder Kaur and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
Citation: 2014 ACJ 16252014 ACC P&H 4 1482014 RCR CIVIL 1 7562013 PLR 172 3722013 SCC ONLINE P&H 144242013 PUNLR 4 372, MANU/PH/1225/2013.
1. This is an appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer against the award dated 19.03.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which a sum of Rs. 5,49,500/- has been awarded in favour of Kulwinder Kaur, respondent No. 1. The appellant has challenged the amounts allowed under different heads to make the aforesaid total saying that this has been a petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, "the Act"] and under the terms of second schedule, the amounts allowed under different heads could not be allowed. Kulwinder Kaur, the claimant alongwith her brother Sukhdev Singh was moving on a motorcycle. Some stray cattle came on the road and a truck that moved to the wrong side had hit their motorcycle. Kulwinder Kaur was taken to Amandeep Hospital where she remained admitted from 11.4.2011 to 5.5.2011. She was operated upon there and lastly, she had to lose her right upper limb on account of which she suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90%.
2. The aforesaid averments have been denied by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though, the petition has been filed under section 163-A of the Act, the compensation has been assessed as per section 166 of the Act. According to him, in a petition brought under section 163-A of the Act, the compensation has to be awarded as per the second schedule. According to him, if a claim is made under section 163-A of the Act, a sum of Rs. 2,29,000/- could not be awarded towards medical expenses. According to him, under the second schedule, the medical expenses cannot be allowed exceeding Rs. 15,000/-. According to him, the other expenses allowed also cannot be allowed under the second schedule.
4. In my opinion, the submissions cannot be accepted. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a number of decisions that the second schedule contains a number of fallacies. It has to be followed in broad principles. In suitable cases where treatment is long or loss is heavy, the compensation cannot be kept confined within the limits prescribed by the second schedule. The law on the point is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra MANU/SC/1154/1996 : 1996 (4) SCC 362. The decision in Trilok Chandra's case [supra] has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Saroj & Ors. MANU/SC/0988/2009 : 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 431. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by learned Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment