Meenakshi and Others vs Habu Singh and Others

M.C. Sharma, J—Since all these appeals and cross objections relate to one incident and arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2008 at about 11.00 PM within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Alwar Gate Ajmer near Alwar Gate crossing, the driver of Pick up Jeep bearing No. RJ 21G 2262 drove the said vehicle rashly and negligently and hit Dharmendra @ Kalu and Murli going on the motor cycle, as a result of which Dharmendra @ Kalu died and Murli sustained injuries.

Thereafter claim petitions were filed. Notices were issued; reply was filed; certain issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment and award dt. 20.4.2010, awarding Rs. 4,44,000/- as compensation in claim petition No. 79/2009, which was filed on account of death of Dharmendra @ Kalu; and Rs. 5,94,600/- in claim petition No. 129/2009, which was filed on account of injuries sustained by Murli.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, two appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, while cross objections have been filed by the Insurance Co. challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal has manifestly erred in considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3000/- per month, whereas he was working with UCO bank as Daily wager and his salary was Rs. 4500/- per month. The claimants produced ample evidence with regard to earning of the deceased but they were not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further erred in considering the two third income of the dependency of the claimants. The Tribunal further erred in awarding merely Rs. 30000/- for the loss of love and affection to the claimants and a very meager amount has been awarded in other heads also. The Tribunal has also applied the lesser multiplier, whereas a much higher multiplier should have been applied. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. has contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the evidence emerging on record. He has further contended that the Tribunal erred to hold that the accident in question took place due to contributory negligence of the driver of pick up, whereas the driver of the motor cycle was solely responsible for the accident and he was also under the influence of liquor. He has further contended that the Jeep was being driven by the person, who was not duly licensed and even then the Tribunal has directed the insurer to make the payment to the third party and thereafter recovery rights have been given, though it is settled law that if there was breach of policy, then the insurer is not under obligation to indemnify the insured and insurer deserves to be exonerated. He has further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is at higher side. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal should be quashed and aside.

The learned counsel for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle has defended the impugned judgment and award and stated the same to be just and proper. He has further contended that the Tribunal on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence emerging on record, decided all the issues and rightly passed the impugned judgment and award, hence no interference is required by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award are found to be just and proper. I do not find any ground to take a different view, than that of the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the aforesaid appeals filed by the claimants as well as the cross objections filed by the Insurance Co., being without any substance, are hereby dismissed.