Gian Singh vs Mohan Singh

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana on a claim petition had awarded a sum of Rs. 76,800/- to the claimants on accounts of the death of Mangal Singh who died in a road accident on 8.6.1989.

Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

The challenge to the award is that the income of the deceased who was a driver of the car which met with an accident, has not been correctly assessed. The other plea is that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, as such the liability to pay compensation should have been fastened on the Insurance Company.

Mr. R.M. Suri, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that it has not been established on record that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, As such no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company. Mr. V.G. Dogra, counsel for respondent No. 2 the driver of the offending vehicle contends that the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company and as such the liability should have been fastened on the Insurance Company.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case file, this Court has reached the conclusion that since the deceased was working as a driver, his monthly income could not be less than 1,000/-. The deceased must be spending Rs. 250/- per month on himself and the remaining Rs. 750/- on the claimants. In this view of the matter, the dependency on the claimants is assessed at Rs. 750/- per month, i.e. Rs. 9,000/- annually. The deceased was 21 years of age at the time of the accident. There is no error in applying a multiplier of 16. Therefore, by applying a multiplier of 11, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 1,44,000/- with 12% interest from the date of the claim petition out of which the compensation already awarded is to be adjusted.

From the perusal of the insurance policy which is Exhibit-1, it is observed that the registration No. of the insured vehicle is mentioned as PAU 527 DCM Tyota which is the number and make of the offending vehicle. The argument of the counsel for the Insurance Company that the chassis number and Engine number do not tally with the numbers given in the registration certificate, is without any substance as the Chassis number and Engine number are the same except missing of one digit which appears to have occurred due to some mistake. Had vehicle bearing No. PAU 527 been some other vehicle, other digits of the Chassis and Engine numbers could not have tallied with the registration certificate. Moreover, at no stage the Insurance Company had taken the plea that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. As such, the Insurance Company cannot take this plea at this stage.

In view of this, the liability to pay compensation is fastened on the Insurance Company.

The appeal is allowed and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Ludhiana, is modified to the extent indicated above.

No order as to costs.