National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Urmila Devi and Others

Yatindra Singh and Vikram Nath, JJ.—Lal Singh is the owner of Tractor No. UP 85-A/4321 (the Tractor). Sri Ratto (the driver) was driver of the Tractor. On 8th April, 1996 at about 9:00 hours the Tractor while passing through village Diwanakala and Gausana overturned. Sri Padam Singh (the Deceased) was sitting in the tractor alongwith with his bags of Sarson/ Lahi. He died on the spot due to injuries received by him.

The widow and his children (the Claimants) filed Claim Petition No. 119 of 1996 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Vth Additional District Judge, Mathura (the Tribunal). It was allowed on 13th October, 1998 by the Tribunal.

The National Insurance Company (the Company) is the insurer of the Tractor. It has filed the present appeal against the award dated 13th October, 1998.

We have heard Sri A.K. Sinha, Counsel for the Company, Sri Rakesh Kumar Pal on behalf of owner and the driver.

One of claimants Smt. Urmila wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-1.

The Tribunal below after considering the statement of Smt. Urmila (PW-1) has held the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/-and it is on the basis of the same, he has calculated the compensation to be Rs. 3,46,540/-.

The Counsel for the Company submitted that this amount is excessive as l/3rd has not been deducted for personal expenses.

The age of the deceased was 35 years. The Court below has applied multiplier of 15 instead of 17. Had the multiplier of 17 been applied then compensation would have been approximately the same if l/3rd was deducted.

The Counsel for the company submitted that Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium and this is excessive.

The Tribunal below neither awarded any amount for funeral expenses nor any amount of loss of estate. In view of this there is no justification to interfere.

The Counsel for the Appellant submits that:

The Tractor was insured for the agricultural purpose;

It was not goods carrying vehicle;

The Tractor was not carrying the goods of the owner but was carrying the goods of the deceased;

The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

It is not disputed that the Tractor was insured for agricultural purposestlt was not insured as goods carrying vehicle. It is also admitted that the goods were not of the owner but were of the deceased. In view of this, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation.

Irrpursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount. Considering the circumstances that the Deceased has left behind him widow as well as children, it would be appropriate that the entire money may be lifted by the claimants. However, the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amount from the owner.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.