AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—This appeal and cross-objection arise out of the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Bangalore, dated 25.07.2008, passed in MVC No. 4426/2006.
The appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability and quantum of compensation. The cross-objection is filed by the claimants, not being satisfied with the compensation awarded to them. In the circumstances, these two matters are taken up together.
The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:
The claimants are the widow, children and aged mother of one P.C. Elias who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.12.2005 at about 2.40 p.m., while riding his scooter bearing registration No. KL-5B-5332 on Wind Tunnel Road, Near Aste Air Force School, Bangalore.
At that time, one car bearing registration No. KA-02-Z-3947 came with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter. On account of the impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and was shifted to Manipal Hospital. He was there in the hospital till 19.12.2006 and succumbed to the injuries at about 4.15 a.m. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the car in Crime No. 24/2005 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 read with 304A of IPC.
According to the claimants, deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. He was aged about 38 years. He was working as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) drawing a salary of Rs. 14,126/- p.m. A week prior to the accident, he had taken voluntary retirement since there were better offers and that he received an appointment letter, a day after his death from a better company. Therefore, they filed a petition claiming compensation.
The accident was not disputed by the owner or the insurance company. The contention of the insurance company is that the driver had only a learner''s driving licence and at the time of the accident, she was not accompanied by a professional driver and therefore, there is a breach of terms of the policy. It was also contended that the deceased was not earning Rs. 14,126/- p.m. The owner did not contest the matter. On behalf of the claimants, widow of the victim was examined as PW-1 and she was relied upon Exs. P1 to P18. One Pradeep Kumar, on behalf of the company, was examined as RW-1 and he did not rely upon any documents. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence let-in by the parties, came to the conclusion, that the insurance company did not prove that there was a breach of policy and further held that the deceased was earning Rs. 14,126/- p.m. and by applying multiplier of ''14'' determined the compensation of Rs. 15,67,944/- under the head of loss of dependency. In addition to that, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was awarded under conventional heads. Thus, in all, Rs. 16,27,944/- has been awarded as compensation.
Mr. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence led in by RW-1. According to him, it was for the driver of the car to prove that at the time of the accident, a person who had possessed valid driving licence was accompanying her and therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company has to be exonerated and he further contends that the tribunal has committed an error in holding that the deceased was getting an income of Rs. 14,126/- p.m. and request the Court to allow the appeal.
The Cross-objector denying the grounds urged by the appellant contends that considering the age of the deceased, the tribunal was required to apply multiplier of 15 as against 14. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-objection.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration:
Whether the liability saddled on the insurance company requires to be reversed.
Whether the compensation awarded is required to be reduced or enhanced or confirmed?
So far as Point No. 1 is concerned, to show that the driver was not accompanied by a person possessed with a valid driving licence, except the self serving testimony, of RW-1, no other material is placed before the Court. The evidence of RW-1 cannot be accepted by any Court to hold that the driver was not accompanied by a person possessed with valid driving licence because RW-1 has not seen the accident and he was also not present at the time of the accident. Based on such evidence, the company cannot be exonerated. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered.
So far as Point No. 2 is concerned, PW-1 has deposed before the Court and also produced the document to show that the deceased was working as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) at Indian Air Force in Yelhanka. 20 days prior to the accident, the deceased has taken the VRS since there were many better offers with better salary. She has also produced the documents to show that the deceased was appointed by a well known company which appointment order was received by her a day after his death.
Advocate for the Insurance Company has not challenged the evidence of PW-1 and in other words, the evidence of PW-1 in regard to the income and appointment of the deceased at a company with better offer is accepted. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in regard to the income of the deceased.
The age of the deceased is also not in dispute. When the deceased was 38 years, the proper multiplier to be applied is 15. As against the same, 14 is applied. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for enhancement in respect of one multiplier amounting to Rs. 1,11,996/-. Accordingly, we answer the same.
In the result, appeal is dismissed. Cross-objection is allowed in part. In addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,11,996/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of lodging the claim petition till the date of payment. The aforesaid amount shall be released to the claimant No. 1-Annamma Varghese, widow of the deceased.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.