National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Bahal Ram Verma and Others

I.M. Quddusi, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 08.11.2010 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 64/2008 against the liability as well as quantum part. The application u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was rejected, but we are of the opinion that the owner and driver in their written statement have stated that whatever the amount of compensation is to be fixed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company would be responsible to pay. In such circumstances the Tribunal should have treated this part of the written statement as collusion between the owner and the claimants and therefore, the application u/s 170 of the Act should not have been rejected. The appellant has challenged the rejection order in the instant appeal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the application u/s 170 of the MVA. In view of the above, we would consider the quantum part of the award also.

Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 19.01.2008 deceased Bhupendra Singh alongwith others had gone to work as labourer in Tractor bearing Regn. No. C.G. 08-C/7464 and Trolley No. C.G. 08-C/7465 owned by Ramprasad. On the way near village Bhalukonha, another Tractor bearing Regn. No. C.G. 07-D/7307 and Trolley No. C.G. 07-D/7308 (for short "offending vehicle") which was being driven by respondent No. 3 herein in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Tractor-Trolley No. C.G. 08-C/7464 & No. CG.08-C/7465 as a result of which Bhupendra Singh who was sitting in the said Tractor Trolley fell down and died.

It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs. 3000/- per month by working as labourer, per month.

The claimants being legal representatives / dependents of the deceased have filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the award of a total compensation of Rs. 6,22,000/- on various heads.

Learned Claims Tribunal has held that the offending Tractor Trolley which was being driven by respondent no. 3 in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident, as a result of which Bhupendra Singh died; there was no breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy by respondents 3 & 4; the driver of Tractor Trolley No. C.G. 08-C/7464 and 7465 namely Deonarayan was not responsible for the accident and the claimants are entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs. 4,57,000/- from the non-applicants 1 to 3 including the appellant jointly or severally.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the records.

So far as it relates to liability part, we have perused the LCR and found that the driver was having a learner''s licence but a trained person who was having a valid and effective driving licence was sitting with him and therefore, there was no breach of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989.

Regarding learner''s licence, a three Judge Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, held in Para 94 that "learners" licences are granted under the Rules framed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learner''s licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner''s licence would, thus, also come within the purview of ''duly licensed'' as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is now a well settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage.

The Supreme Court also held in para 93 that it cannot be said that a person holding a learner''s licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner''s licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act. If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner''s licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree."

In the condition of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question, it has been mentioned under the head "Persons or Classes of Persons entitled to drive" that "Any person including Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner''s Licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989".

In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that there was any breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy or breach of any of the rules.

Learned counsel for the appellant now submits that there was composite negligence on the part of both the Tractor Drivers, therefore, the owner of the other Tractor Trolley bearing Regn. No. C.G. 08-C/7464 & 7465 is also responsible to pay compensation. In our opinion it was the discretion of the claimants to file claim petition against any of the owner of the Tractors in view of the decision of Hon''ble the Apex Court in T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Others, wherein it has been held in Para 6 that in case of composite negligence, each wrong doer is jointly and severally liable to the claimants/injured for payment of entire damages and the claimants/injured have the choice of proceeding against all or any of them.

With regard to quantum part, we have perused the statements of witnesses also and found that the parents were not dependants of the deceased. The deceased was living separately and his wife and minor son were his dependents. The father of the deceased was in possession of an agricultural land. The parents have also other sons who are elder to the deceased, and therefore, they were not entitled to get any amount of compensation in absence of any loss of dependency. Therefore, treating the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month i.e., Rs. 36,000/- per annum, 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses was liable to be deducted. Thus upon deducting l/3rd, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 24,000/-. The age of the deceased was 26 years and therefore, a multiplier of 17 was applicable as laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Therefore, after applying multiplier 17, the total loss of dependency is worked out as Rs. 4,08,000/- (24000 x 17). Besides this, the widow is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of consortium; and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses, which in all comes to Rs. 25,000/- over the other heads. After adding this amount, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,33,000/- which the claimants are entitled to receive from the appellant Insurance Company. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Tribunal that is Rs. 4,57,000/- is liable to be and is hereby reduced to Rs. 4,33,000/-. This award shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum as granted by the Tribunal from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the payment is made. Out of this amount, Rs. 4 lakhs shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 15 years in the name of minor son of the deceased namely Daneshwar Verma, s/o late Bhupendra Singh under the guardianship of her mother namely Smt. Radhika alias Kumari Verma, widow of late Bhupendra Singh Verma. The compensation in respect of loss of estate and funeral expenses that is 15,000/- shall be paid jointly to the parents namely Bahal Ram Verma and Malti Bai Verma. Rest of the amount shall be paid directly to the widow of the deceased. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award dated 08.11.2010 is modified in the above terms. No order as to cost(s).