AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CM-11806-CII-2000:,
Prayer made in this application filed under section 151 CPC is for condoning the delay of 19 days in refiling the present appeal. For the reasons,
stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 19 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned.",
CM-4065-CII-2009:,
Prayer made in this application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC is to bring on record the legal representative of,
respondent no.5, who had expired on 8.9.2003. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Respondent no.1, who is mother of",
respondent no.5, is ordered to be brought on record as his legal representative.",
F.A.O. No.2144 of 2000 (O&M) & Cross Objections No.9-CII-2009:,
This order shall dispose of FAO No.2144-2000 as well as Cross Objections No.9-CII-2009. However, the facts are being noticed from the",
appeal.,
The appellant-United Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal against award dated 06.03.2000 passed by Motor Accident,
Claims Tribunal, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as ""the Tribunal""), whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent-claimants under Section 166",
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed and the Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.1,49,000/- along with interest @",
12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.,
Briefly stated, claimant-appellants no.1 to 5 had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the averments",
that on 11.10.1997, deceased Gurdip Singh was travelling in jeep No.RJ-136-0484 along with Bahadur Singh son of Puran Singh of Vill. Boha,",
Bawa Singh of Vill. Lalluabwali and Birja Singh son Pannu Singh of Vill. Boha. The jeep was being driven by Gurjant Singh @ Kati son of Gurdev,
Singh of Gadar Patti, Boha. While returning from Vill. Dariapur, when their vehicle reached near the house of Surjit Singh, Jathedar, ahead of the",
Bus Stand, Boha, it was hit by bus No.PB-31-2581 of Laddi Bus Service, which was being driven by Jasmail Singh in a rash and negligent",
manner. Gurdip Singh received injuries in the accident and died on the spot. The respondent-claimants being legal heirs of Gurdip Singh filed a,
claim petition before the Tribunal.,
The Tribunal while taking into consideration the monthly income of deceased Gurdip Singh as Rs.1,500/- and his age as 39 years, applied the",
multiplier of ''12'' and by making 1/3rd deduction, awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.1,49,000/- plus Rs.5,000/- towards performing of",
last rites of the deceased.,
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that at the time of accident, neither the driver of the jeep, in which Gurdip Singh was travelling, nor",
the driver of the bus Jasmail Singh were holding valid driving licences. The driver of the offending vehicle is a resident of Mansa whereas the,
licence possessed by him was issued by the Licencing Authority, Ajmer (Rajasthan) and therefore, in view of Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act,",
he not being a resident of Ajmer, the licence so possessed by him was liable to be discarded. As such, for all intents and purposes, he was not",
holding a valid driving licence. He has further argued that even if his licence was renewed at two different occasions, it does not prove its validity.",
Mr. P.S. Bawa, learned counsel for respondent no.7-owner has argued that the owner had taken all possible measures to verify the validity of",
the licence possessed by the Jasmail Singh, the driver. Jasmail Singh, who was employed by respondent no.7 was holding a valid licence which",
was renewed on two different occasions by DTO Bathinda and therefore, respondent no.7 is absolved of its liability. He refers to paragraph 9 of",
the award and has argued that the insurance company could have absolved of its liability to pay compensation only if it succeeds in proving the,
factum that the owner of the offending vehicle had knowledge with regard to fakeness of the licence at the time of employment of the driver.,
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsclaimants, who have filed cross-objections in the case, has argued that the Tribunal has",
awarded a very meager amount of compensation. The deceased was about 39 years of age and the Tribunal was required to apply the multiplier of,
''15'' instead of ''12''. He further submits that taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was married and had five legal representatives,",
1/4th deduction was required to be made instead of 1/3rd deduction towards ''personal expenses'' of the deceased, in view of law laid down by",
Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009. Similarly, the claimants are also",
entitled for compensation under the head ''future prospects'' @ 40%. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned,
award.,
The argument put forward by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Jasmail Singh,
was not holding a valid driving licence cannot be accepted for the reason that the owner of the bus had taken due care at the time of employment,
of the driver. The licence so possessed by Jasmail Singh, driver, at the time of his employment was duly checked and the said licence was renewed",
on two different occasions by the DTO Bathinda and therefore, no doubt can be raised with regard to the validity of the driving licnece so",
possessed by him at the time of his employment. Therefore, as held in paragraph 9 of the impugned award, the insurance company cannot take any",
benefit of the fact that Jasmail Singh, the driver, was not holding a valid driving licence. The findings recoded by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the",
impugned award reads as under:-,
The next question, that arises for consideration is, as to whether, all the respondents, are jointly or severally liable to pay the compensation or",
not. The counsel for respondent no.3, submitted that since the licence was found to be fake and forged one, the Insurance Company, was",
absolved of its liability. Davinder Kumar, Junior Assistant appeared as R.W.2, and stated that their office never renewed licence No.41075 vide",
renewal No.20878. Gurbachan Singh, Managing Partner of the bus, appeared as R.W.3, and stated that Jasmail Singh son of Bhag Singh was the",
driver of Bus No.PB-31-2581 on 11.10.1997, on route Mansa, Boha and Budhlada. He further stated that before he was employed as a driver,",
the licence possessed by him was thoroughly checked by him. He further stated that the same had been issued by the DTO Bathinda. He further,
stated that at that time, the licence had been renewed twice. He further stated that Mark A, is the copy of verification of the licence. The Insurance",
Company could absolve of its liability, to pay the compensation, only after the proof of the factum, that the owner of the offending vehicle, had",
knowledge with regard to the fakeness of the licence, at the time, he employed the driver. Had there been any intentional default on the part of the",
insured in properly verifying the licence of the driver, the matter would have been different. In the instant case, Gurbachan Singh, Managing Partner",
Head,Calculation
Monthly income,"Rs.1,500.00
Future prospects (40%),Rs.600.00
Total monthly income (monthly income + future prospects),"Rs.2,100.00
Annual income (Total monthly income x 12),"Rs.25,200.00
Deductions (Towards personal expenses of deceased),
Annual dependency (1/4th),"Rs.18,900.00
Multiplier (15),
Total loss of dependency (Annual dependency x multiplier),"Rs.2,83,500.00
Conventional heads,
Loss of Estate,"Rs.15,000.00
Funeral expenses,"Rs.15,000.00
Loss of consortium,"Rs.40,000.00
Total amount of compensation,"Rs.3,53,500.00
Amount already awarded Rs.1,49,000.00",
Enhancement,"Rs.2,04,500.00