National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Thana Ram and Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—Since, these six misc. appeals relate to common award dated 31st January, 2008 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sikar in M.A.C.T. case Nos. 212/2001, 223/2001, 224/2001, 258/2001, 342/2002, 124/2002, they are being disposed by this common judgment. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

Facts in brief are that on 11th August, 2001, Gumanaram, Sitaram, Raghunath Prasad, Hanumanram, Rampal and Pannalal were travelling in jeep No. RJ 23 C 0864 and when they reached near Bus Stand Badalwas in Sikar District, suddenly Tractor No. RJ 21 R 7005 came from the front side in a rash and negligent manner hit the jeep. In the accident Gumanaram, Sitaram and Raghunath Prasad suffered injuries and Hanumanaram, Rampal and Panna Lal died. Six claim petitions were filed. All the claim petitions were clubbed together and decided by the common award dated 31st January, 2008.

The respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are driver and owner of the Tractor have filed a written statement. In the written statement it was stated that there is no negligence of the Tractor and the Tractor was standing in a stationary condition on the side-by of the road and it was negligence of the jeep driver, which resulted into accident.

The Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and categorically denied the averments of the claim petitions and preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the claim petition was raised. It was submitted that no information was given either by the claimant or by the owners of both the vehicles to the appellant company regarding accident. It was stated that in the absence of valid and effective driving licence and the permit to ply the vehicle the appellant company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants for the violation so done by the owner of both the vehicles contrary to the provisions of the Act and the branch of policy conditions.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties three issues were framed by the M.A.C.T. The claimants produced 8 witnesses and exhibited 180 documents. On behalf of the Insurance Company statements of Ranveer Singh and Rakesh Sharma were recorded. After hearing the arguments the M.A.C.T. allowed the claim petitions vide the common award dated 31st January, 2008 different compensations were awarded to the claimants.

The learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company argued that the M.A.C.T. passed the award dated 31st August, 2008 without considering the principles of natural justice in which the relevant proposition of public policy for plying the vehicle at a public place as defined in Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been taken note. The appellant Insurance Company raised a specific defence to the effect that the vehicle in which the claimants were travelling i.e. the jeep was equally negligent in the present case. It was evident from the exhibited documents itself that in the night time the vehicle jeep was being driven in a very low beam lights and moreover in a great speed and despite warning and request being made to the driver of the said vehicle plied the jeep in a negligent manner, as a result of which the said accident has occurred. The M.A.C.T. while deciding issue No 1 has not taken into consideration the important aspect of the fact that the driver of the jeep was also charge sheeted as per Ext. 2. The M.A.C.T. while deciding issue No. 1 seriously crept into error of law in not taking into consideration the aspect that the another vehicle i.e. the jeep on the record was also proved to be equally negligent but the manner in which the M.A.C.T. decided issue No. 1 merely relying upon the site plan and the observations made to this effect are totally contrary to the provisions of law and the finding given to the effect that head on collision between the vehicles is totally contrary to the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others 2006 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 757 : 2006 (1) T.A.C. 969 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben v. Rahemansha Fakir and another 2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (S.C.).

The learned Counsel for the claimants opposed the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and they have stated that the award passed by the M.A.C.T. is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company.

First I may consider the finding of the M.A.C.T. issue No. 1 and the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company on issue No. 1. On issue No. 1 that M.A.C.T. gave the following findings:

The M.A.C.T. in its findings took note of the fact that the challan has also been filed against the driver of the jeep vide Ext. 2, but also took note of the fact that the witnesses gave evidence that it was on account of rash and negligent of the driving of the tractor the accident took place. The M.A.C.T. also took note of the fact that Map shows that the accident took place at place "x" which is in the mid of the road. After hitting by the tractor the jeep being light vehicle and the tractor which is fully filled up with the pipes with negligence hit the persons in the jeep and they received the injuries only on account of the pipes in the tractor. The M.A.C.T. also took into consideration the factors by which the accident took place and the rash and negligent driving of the tractor was responsible for accident. The M.A.C.T. also took note of the fact that the claimants may not be believed but the other evidence also shows that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor. The person who lodged the report that the jeep driver was also negligent was not produced before the M.A.C.T. and, hence, the M.A.C.T. on the basis of the evidence of the eye-witnesses who were present at the site and the site map prepared by the police came to the conclusion that the accident took place only on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor. This finding of the M.A.C.T. cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the M.A.C.T. on issue No. 1. Thus, the arguments raised by the appellant Insurance Company that the findings of the M.A.C.T. on issue No. 1 being devoid of merit cannot be accepted. The cases relied on by the learned Counsel are not applicable to the facts of this case.

Now I may consider the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and the findings of the M.A.C.T. on issue No. 2, in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company one by one.

SBCMA 1949/2008 (Claim Case No. 212/2001)

The claimants filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 38,23,000/- for the death of Hanumanaram aged 26 years in the accident. The claimants have not produced any proof regarding income and the M.A.C.T. on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income Rs. 2,500/- per month. Out of which one fourth of income assessed to be incurred by the deceased on himself. The M.A.C.T. determined the age of the deceased to be 30 years on the basis of the post-mortem report. In this manner the M.A.C.T. applied the multiplier of 18 to the income of Rs. 22,500/- per year. The Insurance Company argued that as per the rulings of the Apex Court the amount to be deducted should be one third but in the instant matter the M.A.C.T. only deducted one fourth. This argument of the learned Counsel is liable to be rejected as in the judgment of the M.A.C.T. future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration. By applying the multiplier of 18 to Rs. 22,500/- per year determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 4,05,000/-. For love and affection to wife Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. For the love and affection to father and mother Rs. 10,000/- each were added. For loss of expectation Rs. 10,000/- were awarded and for cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In all total Rs. 4,50,000/- were awarded. The Insurance Company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% award cannot be said to be excessive. I have gone through the findings of the M.A.C.T. in respect of grant of compensation to the claimants for the death of Hanuman. In my view of the M.A.C.T. has rightly awarded Rs. 4,50,000/- to the claimants. This amount cannot be said to be excessive.

SBCMA 1946/2008 (Claim Case No. 223/2001)

The claimants filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 28,20,000/- for the death of Rampal aged 35 years in the accident. The claimants have not produced any proof regarding income and the M.A.C.T. on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income to be Rs. 2500/- per month. Out of which after incurring for self Rs. 2,045/- were determined to be his income and multiplying it with 12 it comes to Rs. 24,540/- per year. Looking to his age as 35 years the multiplier of 17 was applied. In this manner Rs. 4,17,180/- were determined as compensation. The Insurance Company argued that as per the rulings of the Apex Court the amount to be deducted should be one third but in the instant matter the M.A.C.T. only deducted less than one fourth. This argument of the learned Counsel is liable to be rejected as in the judgment of the M.A.C.T. future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration. For love and affection to wife Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. For love and affection to father and mother Rs. 10,000/- each were awarded. For love and affection for three children Rs. 15,000/- in total ( Rs. 5,000/- each) were awarded. For loss of expectation Rs. 10,000/- were awarded and for cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In all total Rs. 4,77,180/- were awarded. The Insurance Company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% award cannot be said to be excessive. I have gone through the findings of the M.A.C.T. in respect of the amount awarded to the claimants for the death of Rampal. In my view the M.A.C.T. has rightly awarded Rs. 4,77,180/- to the claimants. This amount cannot be said to be excessive.

SBCMA 1950/2008 (Claim Case No. 224/2001)

The claimants filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 21,58,000/- for the death of Panna Lal, aged 39 years in the accident. The claimants have not produced any proof regarding income and the M.A.C.T. on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income Rs. 2500/- per month. Out of which one fourth of income assessed to be incurred by the deceased on himself. The M.A.C.T. determined the age of the deceased to be 39 years on the basis of the post mortem report and as per the evidence of the claimants. In this manner the M.A.C.T. applied the multiplier of 16 of the income of Rs. 22,500/- per year. The Insurance Company argued that as per the rulings of the Apex Court the amount to be deducted should be one third but in the instant matter the M.A.C.T. only deducted one fourth. This argument of the learned Counsel is liable to be rejected as in the judgment of the M.A.C.T. future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration. By applying the multiplier of 16 to Rs. 22,500/- per year determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-. For love and affection to wife Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. For the love and affection of four children in total Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. 5,000/- each) were awarded. For loss of expectation Rs. 10,000/- were awarded and for cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In all total Rs. 4,05,000/- were awarded. The Insurance Company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% award cannot be said to be excessive. I have gone through the findings of the M.A.C.T. in respect of the compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of Panna Lal. In my view of the M.A.C.T. has rightly awarded Rs. 4,05,000/- to the claimants. This amount cannot be said to be excessive.

SBCMA 1947/2008 (Claim Case No. 258/2001)

The claimant Gumanaram filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 18,38,000/- for the injuries received by him. The claimant has not produced any proof regarding income and the M.A.C.T. on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income Rs. 3000/- per month. Since the claimant could not earn for three months as during this period he has remained on medical treatment and for some time admitted in Hospital therefore Rs. 9,000/- were determined as compensation for loss of income. For one simple injury and one grievous injury Rs. 6,000/- were awarded. He remained admitted in Jaipuria Hospital for that Rs. 3,000/- were awarded. For payment of medicines purchasing etc. Rs. 6,000/- were awarded to the claimant. Since, the claimant suffered injuries and remained in trauma for long period, the M.A.C.T. on all heads determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 35,000/- to be payable to the claimant. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the M.A.C.T. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the M.A.C.T. The M.A.C.T. rightly determined compensation in the amount of Rs. 35,000/- on all heads. This amount cannot be said to be perverse. The Insurance Company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% award cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be rejected.

SBCMA 1951/2008 (Claim Case No. 342/2002)

The claimant Sitaram filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 19,10,000/- for the injuries received by him. The claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 23,508/-. For fourteen days he remained admitted in Hospital and got treatment. Looking to the expenses incurred by him and the period he remained in Hospital for the injuries suffered by him, the M.A.C.T. awarded one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 38,000/- to the claimant. I have gone through the findings recorded by the M.A.C.T. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the M.A.C.T. It is also an admitted fact that he has produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 23,508/-. In my view for the injuries received by the claimant and for the period he remained in Hospital, the M.A.C.T. awarded one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 38,000/- to the claimant. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. The Insurance Company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% interest cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be rejected.

SBCMA 1948/2008 (Claim Case No. 124/2002)

The claimant Raghunath Prasad filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 29,40,000/- for the injuries received by him. The claimant produced Ext. 11 discharge ticket dated 23rd August, 2001. It is stated in the discharge ticket that "No wave activity on right eye. In the Electrophysiology report Ext. 12-A, it is mentioned that "No wave forms could be framed on right side". Medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 45,580/- was produced. He remained on leave for the period 11th August, 2001 to 12th August, 2001, 13th August, 2001 to 18th October, 2001 for 67 days and thereafter from 27th October, 2011 to 13th November, 2001 for 18 days. The salary certificate of March 2002 produced by the claimant shows that he was drawing Rs. 9116/- per month. In this manner three months salary would be 27500/-. Admission in Hospital for 12 days 12,000/- must have been incurred by him. Medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 5,580/-. Disability certificate showing disability of 30% was produced showing loss of vision on right eye due to optic atrophy without disfiguration permanent disability. The M.A.C.T. on all heads awarded Rs. 2,000,00/-, to the claimant. I have gone through the findings recorded by the M.A.C.T. The claimant was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, cannot be said to be excessive. The Insurance Company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% interest cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be, rejected. In view of the above the Misc. Appeals Nos. 1946/2008, 1947/2008, 1948/2008, 1949/2008, 1950/2008 and 1951/2008 filed by appellant Insurance Company against the award dated 31st January, 2008 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 212/2001, 223/2001, 224/2001, 258/2001, 342/2002, 124/2002 being devoid of merit stand rejected. The award stands confirmed. The stay orders if any in the misc. appeals stand vacated. The stay applications also stand rejected. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.