Ganbai and Others vs Ganpat and Another

Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.—This appeal, u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the sum awarded to them vide award dated 3.2.2001, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kukshi District Dhar (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 20/99.

On 5.1.1999 deceased Bondarsingh was driving the tractor bearing Registration No. MP-11/5088, owned by respondent No. 1 Ganpat. The said tractor was insured with respondent No. 2, at the relevant point of time. Deceased Bondarsingh was driving the aforesaid tractor under the employment of respondent No. 1 when at about 1. a.m. the tractor turned over a valley. Deceased Bondarsingh received injuries in the accident and succumbed to the same. His legal representatives and dependents preferred a claim demanding Rs. 4,25,000 as compensation for the loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased. The learned Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim of the claimants in part only and passed an award of Rs. 1,75,000 in their favour against respondent No. 1 Ganpat only. Hence, the claimants/appellants have filed this appeal challenging the quantum of the award as well as finding of the learned Tribunal exonerating the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company from its liability.

The learned Tribunal has, in para 33 of the impugned award, held that the amount of loss caused to the appellants is Rs. 2,16,000. This amount has been worked out after assessing the annual income of the deceased and after deducting 1/3rd amount which must have been spent by the deceased on himself and after applying the relevant multiplier. After working out the quantum of compensation on multiplier basis, there was no need to make further deduction on account of lumpsum payment. Any deduction after deducting 1/3rd of income of the deceased is not in conformity with the established principles of law. The further deduction from Rs. 2,16,000 for payment of lumpsum amount and reducing the compensation payable to Rs. 1,75,000 as detailed in para 34 of the impugned award, is not justified and is against the principles accepted for assessing the loss of dependency. In the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation payable to the appellants was Rs. 2,16,000 and not Rs. 1,75,000. The finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard needs to be modified accordingly.

As regards the liability of respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, insured, tractor owner Ramesh has not filed any appeal against the part of the award exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased/driver of the tractor was not having any driving licence, this finding is against and adversely affects the interests of the insured, the tractor owner. But, he, for the reasons best known to him, has not chosen to challenge the exoneration of the Insurance Company. In the facts and circumstances of the case it will be appropriate to direct the Insurance Company to make payment of the amount of award payable to the appellants and giving them right to recover the same from the insured/tractor owner.

Thus, this appeal is allowed to the above extent. The impugned award is modified and the quantum of award is enhanced from Rs. 1,75,000 to Rs. 2,16,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ Rs. 6% p.a. while the remaining amount shall carry the interest at the rate awarded by the learned Tribunal. Looking to the facts of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company shall pay the amount of the award to the claimants/appellants and then it may recover the amount so paid from the insured/tractor owner/respondent No. 1.