Dhanraj and another vs Jeewan Singh and others

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Durg, in Claim Case No. 125/88, decided on August 18,1992.

Manoharlal (25) died in an accident that took place on July 29,1988 when truck No. MBS 1613 hit his scooter BHH 7996 at 4 p.m. In front of S.F. Line on the G.E. Road. At the time of accident, Jeewan Singh was the owner, while Kishan was the driver of the vehicle. The truck was registered with the National Insurance Co., Raipur. The matter was reported to the police and a case u/s 304A of the IPC was registered and challan filed.

Claimants are father and mother of the deceased. Father was 50 while mother was 48 at the time of accident, The allegation is that Kishan was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the accident in which deceased received serious injuries resulting in his death on the spot. The deceased was working with his parents in ready-made garments and was looking after them. Deceased was paying them Rs. 2500.00 to Rs. 3000.00 per month for domestic expenditure and they were dependent on him; he could live upto 70 years and improve the business. After the accident, they have been rendered without any support. Accordingly, they claimed Rs. 9,00,000.00 as compensation individually.

The claim has been denied by the respondents and it is stated that the deceased died due to his own negligence when his scooter struck with the truck. The accident has been admitted, but responsibility has been put on the deceased.

On the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed three issues. It found that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the truck driver and that the claimants are entitled to compensation. Accordingly compensation of Rs. 25,000.00 has been awarded besides Rs. 2,000.00 for damage to the scooter. The amount has been ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The claimants are not satisfied with the compensation so awarded. Shri N. Nagrath, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation is grossly at a low rate and, therefore, it should be increased. Therefore, this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

We find that just compensation has not been paid to the claimants in this case. Evidence is that the deceased was 25 years'' old at the time of accident, father was 50, while mother was 48. Therefore, looking to the present life expectancy, they are expected to live reasonably upto 70 years. The deceased was only 25 years'' only. Evidence suggests that he was earning Rs. 2500.00 to Rs. 3000.00 per month and was paying Rs. 2,000.00 to his parents for household expenses. Therefore, the dependency may be counted on 1/3rd of the average of Rs. 2500.00 to Rs. 3,000.00 which comes to Rs. 2700.00 per month. Deceased was also sharing the same kitchen, therefore, he could share l/3rd of the household expenditure. Thus the dependency should be Rs. 1800.00 per month. In a case of this nature, taking into consideration the age of the parents and death of the deceased, the reasonable multiplier should be 13. The total amount of compensation shall, therefore, be Rs. 2,80,800.00 (21,600 x 13 = 2,80,800). The compensation so awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till payment.

Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the liability for payment of compensation above Rs. 1,50,000.00 is of the owner and the driver of the vehicle. This submission is based on the plea raised in the written statement filed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that statement in the written statement, coupled with production of photo copy of cover note is enough to show that liability of the Insurance Company is restricted to Rs. 1,50,000.00. We are not satisfied with this contention. Plea has to be established by production of necessary evidence. Taking of plea in the written statement and filing of photo copy of the cover note is not enough. Pleadings are to be proved in a manner envisaged in the law of evidence. Assuming that the liability under the Act is restricted to Rs. 1,50,000.00, yet the Insurance Company can be made liable to pay total compensation in case extra premium has been paid, which has to be proved by it, but no such plea has been taken nor proved. With this background, it is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,80,800.00, Rs. 2,000.00 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000.00 towards damage to the scooter. However, the amount would carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum instead of 12% per annum allowed by the Tribunal, payable from the date of application to the date of payment. The amount shall be paid within two months from the date of judgment. Costs on parties.