Kulwant Kaur and Others vs Babu Singh and Others

Viney Mittal, J.—This judgment shall dispose of two first appeals being FAO Nos. 1244 and 1199 of 1997 as both the appeals have arisen out of the award dated February 28, 1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short ''the Tribunal'').

FAO No. 1244 of 1997 has been filed by the claimants claiming further enhancement of compensation whereas FAO No. 1199 of 1997 has been filed by the Insurance Company claiming that it was not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

An accident had taken place on June 30, 1993. The said accident resulted in the death of Gurnam Singh who was 30 years of age and Was employed as driver. He was claimed to be earning Rs. 4,000 per month. A truck No. HNZ 4234 driven by Dilbagh Singh driver hit the Matador which was being driven by the deceased driver Gurnam Singh. Gurnam Singh died as a result of the aforesaid accident. It was claimed by the claimants that Dilbagh Singh driver was driving the truck rashly and negligently and, therefore, the accident in question had occurred.

The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence available on the record found that Dilbagh Singh was driving the offending truck rashly and negligently and on account of the aforesaid fact the accident in question had occurred resulting in the death of Gurnam Singh. Consequently, the claimants were held entitled to compensation. The income of the deceased Gurnam Singh was assessed at Rs. 1,650 per month. Consequently, his dependency was assessed at Rs. 1,200 per month. A multiplier of 14 was applied. On account of the aforesaid fact, the compensation payable on account of his death was assessed at Rs. 2,01,600. Additionally, claimants were held entitled to Rs. 5,000 on account of medical expenses incurred by them and Rs. 10,000 was also assessed as payable for the loss of consortium to the claimants on account of the death of Gurnam Singh. Thus, a total of Rs. 2,16,000 was assessed as compensation payable by the respondents along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The plea raised by the Insurance Company that the licence in question possessed by Dilbagh Singh was fake and, therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. This plea was rejected by the Tribunal holding that even if the original licence was fake but nothing had been shown the Insurance Company that the subsequent renewals were also fake. Consequently, the Insurance Company was also held liable to share the responsibility jointly and severally.

As noticed above, two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company as well as by the claimants.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

Mr. Sumit Mahajan, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has argued that Gurnam Singh deceased had left behind his widow, who was only 28 years of age at the time of his death and two minor children of 9 years and 4 years of age besides his aged parents. Although Mr. Mahajan has also argued that the income of the deceased was much more than as has been assessed by the learned Tribunal. But apparently, there is no evidence led by the claimants to support the aforesaid contention. A grievance has also been raised by Mr. Mahajan with regard to the lower multiplier applied by the Tribunal.

In my considered opinion, the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even if the deceased Gurnam Singh was earning Rs. 1,650 per month, as assessed by the learned Tribunal and his dependency as assessed at Rs. 1,200 per month, still as per Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since the deceased Gurnam Singh, was aged 30 years of the time of his death, it would be more appropriate to apply the, multiplier of 17 in his case. In these circumstances, the compensation payable to the claimants on account of the death of Gurnam. Singh would come to Rs. 2,44,800. Additionally, adding an amount of Rs. 5,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 10,000 of loss of consortium, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,59,800. Rounding of the same an amount of Rs. 2,60,000 would be appropriate as Compensation payable to the claimants by the respondents. The appeal filed by the claimants, is thus, liable to be allowed to that extent.

Coming to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the only grievance made by the Insurance Company is that the licence of Dilbagh Singh, driver was fake and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

However, the aforesaid plea of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, . In Swaran Singh''s case (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that mere absence or fake or invalid driving licence or disaqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defences available with the insurer against either insured or the third party. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. In the present case no further materials has been placed on the record that employer of the driver was negligent in employing the driver.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal FAO No. 1244 of 1997 filed by the claimants is allowed partly to the extent noticed above and it is held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,60,000 along with interest as assessed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal FAO No. 1199 of 1997 filed by the Insurance Company is, however, dismissed.