Serial No. 63 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Mac App 4/2022 CM(1788/2022) United India Insurance company Limited. … Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. N H Khuru, Advocate. Vs. Abid Farooq Bhat and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Wasiq, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 30.09.2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company appellant against award dated 29-10-2021, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Anantnag in claim petition titled as Abid Farooq Bhat vs Abdul Majeed War and Ors. 2. Facts emanating from the record would reveal that a claim petition came to be filed by respondent 1 herein before the Tribunal, stating therein the claim petition that while riding a motor cycle on 01-05-2016, the claimant sustained severe bodily injuries in a vehicular accident caused on account of the collusion of the said motor cycle with a Tractor Trolley bearing registration No. JK02AF-3368 resulting into registration of an FIR as well bearing No. 97/2016 with police station Kulgam, for offences under Section 279/338 RPC and that on account of the said severe injuries, the claimant suffered a permanent disability and consequently prayed in the claim petition for grant of compensation under different components/heads. In the said claim petition besides impleading the owner and driver of the offending Tractor Trolley as party respondent, the insurance company-appellant herein as well was impleaded as party respondent owing to the fact that the offending Tractor Trolley was insured with the Insurance Company appellant herein. 3. The tribunal after entertaining the claim petition summoned the respondents therein where after though initially all the respondents in the claim petition appeared yet thereafter respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and owner of offending Tractor did not choose to appear and remained absent and respondent 3 in the claim petition being Insurance Company appellant herein alone contested the claim petition by filing the objections, whereafter the tribunal with the consent of the appearing counsel for the contesting parties proceeded to decide the claim petition without framing issues on the basis of the evidence led before it by the contesting parties. 4. The claimant in the claim petition appeared as his own witness in the witness box besides examining witness namely Mazeeb Farooq and one Dr. Mohammad Saleem Tak, whereas the Insurance Company appellant herein examined only one witness namely Mohammad Hussain Bhat being its Branch Manager at Anantnag. 5. Upon conclusion of the adjudication of the claim petition the tribunal passed the impugned award and held the claimant entitled to the compensation of Rs. 20,89,067.00 to be payable by the Insurance Company appellant herein along with simple interest @ 6% from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of its payment. 6. The insurance company appellant herein has challenged the impugned award in the instant appeal on multiple grounds urged in the memo of appeal. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. According to Mr. Khuru, appearing counsel for the appellant herein the tribunal passed the award on a higher side in favour of the claimant, insofar as the loss of earnings, pain and sufferings and for conveyance and special diet is concerned with the disability of 45% of the claimant treating 100% the loss of earnings and therefore, grossly erred in working out the amount of compensation under the head of loss of earnings. Mr. Khuru, would further submit that the tribunal also erred in granting an amount of Rs. 01.00 lakhs each for pain and suffering and for conveyance and special diet to the claimant without there being any credible evidence led by the claimant in this regard. On the contrary the counsel for the claimant respondent 1 would controvert the submissions of Mr. Khuru and would submit that the award has been passed validly and justly. 8. Perusal of the record available on the file in general and the impugned award in particular would manifestly reveal that the tribunal has rightly granted the amount of compensation to the claimant respondent 1 herein under components/heads 1 and 2, however, under components/heads 3 and 4 seemingly on a higher side awarded. Thus, having regard to the case set up by claimant respondent 1 before the tribunal inasmuch as the evidence on record led by the claimant respondent 1 before the tribunal as well as keeping in mind the settled position and principles of law pertaining to the cases arising out of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation, the award of Rs. 01.00 lakh each under the components/heads 3 and 4 in the award is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- each instead of 01.00 lac each. The award, therefore, is accordingly modified while upholding the rest of the award. 9. Accordingly, in view of above, the instant appeal shall stand disposed of. 10. Registry consequently is directed to release the amount of Rs. 19,89,067.00 in favour of the claimant respondent 1 herein along with interest if any, minus the amount that may have been received/released in favour of the claimant respondent 1 earlier by this Court. The amount be released as above in favour of the claimant respondent 1 strictly upon his proper verification and identification and the remaining amount shall be released in favour of the Insurance Company appellant herein along with interest, if any. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 30.09.2025 Sarvar