AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Waingankar, J.—Both these appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 18.01.2008 in MVC No. 8100/2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
On 05.03.2006 at about 11.30 p.m. deceased-Jagadish was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-05-ES-7041. The motor cycle was being ridden by one Kumar in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the rider lost control over the motor cycle and thereby the motor cycle fell into a ditch. As a result of the impact, Jagadish sustained serious injuries and while he was undergoing treatment in NIMHANS he died. He was a bachelor. His mother, sister and brothers filed a claim petitioner under Section 163-A M.V. Act claiming compensation.
The claim petition was contested by the insurer of the motor cycle. Though the insurance company admitted issuance of a policy in favour of the owner of the motor cycle, which was in force as on the date of the accident, it has contended that the motor cycle was being driven by a person holding no driving licence and as such the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the motor cycle in the event compensation is awarded.
The claim petition came up for consideration before the Tribunal before whom the brother of deceased was examined PW.1. Exs. P1 to P14 were marked. The Administrative Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW.1. Exs. R1 to R8 were marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence and upon hearing the submission made by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties partly allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs. 3,53,100/- together with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till the date of deposit from the owner and insurer of the motor cycle.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants have preferred M.F.A. No. 3523/2008. Aggrieved by the liability fastened, the insurance company preferred M.F.A.3757/2008.
I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and insurance company. Perused the records.
The learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side and compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads requires to be considerably enhanced.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, the police after investigation filed charge-sheet against him under Section 131 of the Motor Vehicle Act, that the owner of the motor cycle was none other than the brother of the rider, that the policy does not cover the risk of pillion rider and hence the learned counsel sought to set aside the judgment and award and to dismiss the claim petition.
Having heard the submission made by the both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material on record and the judgment and war passed by the Tribunal, the following point would arise for my determination:
"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
Admittedly, this is a claim under Section 163(a) of the M.V. Act. In the petition itself the claimants have stated that the deceased-Jagadisha was working as a helper in Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., Company and getting salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The Tribunal has taken his salary as Rs. 2,500/- per month based on Ex. P7 salary certificate and by deducting 1/3rd of his income for his personal and living expenses as per Schedule-II and selecting the multiplier as ''17'' having regard to the age of the deceased as 21 years determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,40,068/-. In addition to that, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of love and affection as per the Schedule, Rs. 8,578/- towards Medical Expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,53,100/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. On my re-appreciation of evidence, I am in full agreement with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads and therefore no interference is called for so far as the compensation determined by the Tribunal is concerned.
Coming to the liability to pay the compensation, it has to be stated that though the insurance company had taken the contention that the rider of the motor cycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence and that the charge-sheet was filed against the rider under Section 3 of the M.V. Act and that there is breach of policy condition by the owner of the motor cycle, all those contentions have been negatived by the Tribunal. The insurance company fully satisfied the award by depositing the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal together with 6% interest thereon. Therefore, it is not open for the insurance company to take the very same contention in this appeal. Insurance company neither examined RTO nor the Investigation Officer who filed charge sheet under Section 3 of the M.V. Act against the rider of the motor cycle involved in the accident.
Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.