The United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Ram Bhateri & Ors.

1. The appellant has impugned the award of compensation dated 31.10.2018, directing it to pay compensation to the claimants. The appellant was the insurer of a Canter truck which was involved in an accident, in which three persons travelling in a Swift Dzire car died. The driver of the said car escaped the fatality.

2. The claimants had contended that the offending Canter truck was parked on a public road in a manner that it posed a patent threat to the life and safety of the other motorists and road users. In other words, stationing of the offending truck in the middle of a road- a busy carriage way, would be considered rash and negligent driving. The appellant, however, contends that the Canter truck was parked on the left side of the road, where motor vehicles are ordinarily parked. Therefore, no blame can be apportioned to the insured vehicle in which the Swift Dzire car crashed.

3. The learned Tribunal has considered the issue and reasoned as under:- “During the course of arguments ld. counsel for the respondent no.3/insurance company submitted that the Canter was properly parked on the extreme left side of the road and infact the respondent no.4 i.e. driver of the car was at fault and due to his negligence, the accident happened. I am not satisfied with this contention of the ld. counsel for the insurance company. It is again mentioned that as per the site plan the Canter truck was parked on the left hand side of the road in the lane which appears to be a lane for plying the vehicles and not for stopping or parking the vehicles. As per the site plan there is a solid line on the left hand side and just beside it on the right hand side the truck was parked at point 'A' i.e. on the lane, which is clearly a lane meant for driving and not for stopping. So, the driver of the Canter truck was not supposed to park his truck at point 'A' and was supposed to park it on the left hand side of the solid line. The driver was even more negligent by not switching on the blinkers or putting proper marks before the truck to give proper signal to the other vehicles about the parking of the truck at that point. According to the respondent no.4 he had to swerve his car to the left as the car running in front of him moved right due to the fact that one tried to cross the road. Under this particular situation when the respondent no.4 had to turn his car to the left hand side, the way ahead of him was supposed to be clear. Had the Canter truck not been parked at the place where it was actually parked, the car would have passed through and the accident would have never happened. The accident happened only because the Canter truck was wrongly parked on the road. Under these circumstances, to my mind, the negligence was completely on the part of the respondent no.1”. (emphasis supplied)

4. The Court would note that on a public road, unless there is a designated area for parking of vehicles, the stopping or stationing of a vehicle even for a little while, be it on the left side, would create a traffic hazard. The appellant’s/insured vehicle had done so. In the present case, the insured vehicle was parked/stationed on a busy public road, thereby manifesting itself as a traffic hazard. Any accident caused due to their rash and negligent use or driving of the vehicle would be attributed to the insured vehicle and the third party liability will have to be borne by the insurer. It is another matter though that the insurer may seek to recover the amounts from the owner and/or driver. The driver with a valid driving license would be indemnified and the compensation awarded has to be borne by the insurer.

5. The second ground for challenge of the award is that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side and that the grant of medical expenses of Rs. 9,67,797/- is without verification of the medical bills; that copies of the bills were not supplied to the appellant. In this regard, the learned Tribunal has reasoned as under:- “22. In the present case the petitioner has filed original medical bill for Rs.9,67,797/-. During cross-examination she stated that she has spent Rs. 9,67,000/- on the treatment of her deceased son. He was treated in Max Hospital. She further stated that she did not receive any compensation/reimbursement of medical bills from anywhere. She denied the suggestion that the bills filed by her is not genuine. Looking into all the facts, I award Rs.9,67,800/- to the petitioners towards medical expenses”.

6. The only suggestion put to the mother was that the bills were not genuine. However, she asserted that the bills were original.

7. In her affidavit of evidence, she states as under:- “.......

5. That during the interim period of road accident and accidental death my son was treated for accidental injuries at PGI Rohtak and then referred to Max Hospital Saket, New Delhi. That during the treatment of accidental injuries an amount of ten lac on doctors fee, pharmacy, conveyance, diet etc. That bill of Rs. 9,67,797.46/- for treatment of Rajesh Dagar is exhibited as PW1/9. That besides earning deceased being the young male member of family was also providing gratuitous services to the family as normally an adult young son does in Indian context. That services which deceased used to provide to the family were vital in smooth running of the affairs of the family. The services ranged from paying utility bills, shopping, escorting family, etc. That all the petitioners are in dearth of services which deceased used to perform when alive. That voluntary services of deceased can be factored in pecuniary value of not less than Rs. 10,000/per months for at least assessing compensation as deceased was utilising value able time on an average of 3-4 hrs per day on these services. That value of services approximately would have been fifteen lac, if annulized with approximate multiplier and time factor. Petitioners had to spend extra amount to outsource few of these services as such just and proper compensation may be ascertained on all the damages suffered due to accidental death of Sh. Rajesh Dagar”.

8. In her cross-examination, she deposed as under:- “I tender in evidence my affidavit Ex. PW1/A. It bears my thumb impression at point A to D. I reply upon the documents Ex. PW/1/1 to Ex. PW1/7. Xxxxxx by Sh. B.K. Sharma Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3. I am not an eye-witness to the accident. It is correct that my son was unmarried and was employed with DR Associates. I have filed the salary proof. It is wrong to suggest that the salary proof filed by me is not genuine. I have spent Rs. 9,67,000/- on the treatment of my deceased son. He was treat in Max Hospital. I have not filed complete record of payments made by me. It is wrong to suggest that the bills filed by me is not genuine. We did not receive any compensation/reimbursement of medical bills from anywhere. I have not received any compensation from employer of my deceased son. My husband was in employment and he is getting pension now. He is getting pension of approx. Rs. 8,000/- p.m. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. Xxxxxx by Ms. Vandana Kahlon ld. Counsel for respondent no. 4. I am illiterate. I know the contents of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. I am conversant with Hindi. I have put my thumb impression. I had gone to Oath Commissioner for attestation. My son knew Vipin Kumar Sharma for a period of about 06 months prior to the date of accident. He had travelled with Vipin Kumar Sharma in his car once prior to the accident. The police has never recorded any of my statement. It is correct that the charge sheet is against the offending vehicle which is PB 31 L 2455. Xxxxxx by Sh. Varun Sarin Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 5. Adopted as above”.

9. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the claimant’s testimony apropos the medical bills remains unshaken. It was for the insurer to have sought further evidence if they so desired, but they chose not to do so.

10. What emanates from the aforesaid is that the insurance company had cross-examined the claimant’s mother apropos the expenses incurred by her on the treatment at Max Hospital. The cross-examination was apropos the original medical bills. In her evidence, nothing adverse was found apropos the bills or payments. If the appellant doubted the payments, it could have additionally verified the same from the hospital, which is based in Delhi. However, it chose not to verify the bills separately. The bills and the payments stood proven.

11. In view of the preceding discussion it is evident that, the learned MACT has rightly awarded the aforesaid re-imbursement of medical expenses.

12. There is no ground for interfering with the impugned order. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. JULY 17, 2019 RW