Non-renewal of Route Permit is not the defence available to the Insurance Company to avoid liability to compensate the third party: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir
Enactment of Motor Vehicles Act is welfare legislation with an objective to give financial aid to the victims of motor vehicular accidents and also to the persons who are deprived of their physical capabilities because of such accidents. This legislation aids such victims or their dependants to lead a respectable life. Thus, the interpretation of various sections of Motor Vehicles Act shall be towards the fulfilment of these objectives and not to block the compensation on non-sustainable grounds. The aforesaid has been established by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir while adjudicating the case of Gouri Shanker v. Mohd. Iqbal & ors. [MA 534/2014] which was decided upon by a single judge bench comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan on 10 August 2021.
The facts of the case are as follows. A Tipper bearing No.JK11- 4837, while being driven rashly and negligently, hit the appellant-claimant on 25.03.2011 at about 10.30 AM at Yard No.6, Narwal, Jammu, as a result of which received injuries and his left leg got fractured. Firstly, he remained admitted in Bee Enn Charitable Hospital, Jammu and thereafter he was operated upon in a hospital at Amritsar (Punjab). The petitioner as per the disability certificate issued by the Board of Doctors suffered a permanent disability of 30% which when compared to whole body shall be reduced by 50%. Appellant-Gouri Shanker filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal passed the award dated 13.06.2014 holding the appellant entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,19,000/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future income from the owner payable by insurance company with right to recover the same from the owner-insured. Being not satisfied the appellant has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the award.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “the impugned award merits to be modified. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and it is held that besides the awarded amount, the appellant shall also be entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- being the amount incurred on transportation charges as well as the expenses incurred on the attendant. Thus, in all the appellant shall be entitled to receive compensation for an amount of Rs.3,39,000/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum except on the amount of loss of future income from the insurance company. Let the awarded amount be released in favour of appellant after proper verification and identification in terms of the conditions, if any, as contained in the impugned award.”