National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Basanti Devi and Others

B.C. Kandpal, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 11.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 61 of 2007, Smt. Basanti Devi and Anr. v. Smt. Krishna Devi and Ors..

Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.2006 at about 03:05 p.m., the deceased - Sher Singh had parked his Government Jeep near Masjid, Nainital and was standing on the side of the road near Masjid with the support of railing/wall, suddenly, a Max Jeep bearing registration No. UA04B/8451, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, due to which Sher Singh sustained serious injuries. He was immediately after the accident admitted in the B.D. Pandey Hospital where the doctors declared him dead. The claimants are the dependents upon the deceased and filed claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 15,50,000/-. According to the claim petition, at the time of the accident the deceased was 57 years of age and was working as a driver in Thana Bhowali and used to earn Rs. 13,554/- per month as salary.

Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of the notices, the opposite parties contested the claim by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 8,21,000/- along with interest 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 11.12.2007.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal before this Court.

Heard Lalit Belwal, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sah, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the hill endorsement is necessary for driving the commercial vehicle on hill routes. In order to support his version he has invited my attention towards paper No. 25C - photocopy of the driving licence wherein no hill endorsement has been made in the driving licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

I do not find any force in the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. and the driver of vehicle No. UA04B/4851 having the valid driving licence but the licence was not having hill endorsement. Paper No. 17C/6 is the photocopy of the driving licence available on record. Only on this point the driver cannot be debarred or disqualified to ply the vehicle. The licencing authority after due care and adopting the due process of law has issued the licence. Generally, the rubber stamp is fixed on the driving licence for hill endorsement and no process is followed in this regard. If the stamp is not affixed in the driving licence, merely for this technical ground, the driving licence cannot be said to be invalid to ply the vehicles on hill routes. Therefore, mere absence of hill endorsement, the driving licence cannot be said to be invalid.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the age of the deceased at time of the accident was 57 years. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of ''8'' in order to calculate the amount of compensation. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal appears to be on the higher side.

Learned Counsel for the claimants/respondents has made a rival contention and has submitted that the Tribunal rightly adopted the multiplier while calculating the amount of compensation. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

As far as the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal decided issue No. 4 in this regard. According to the claimants, the deceased was working in Thana Police Station as a driver and was getting Rs. 13,554/- per month as salary. In order to support their case, the claimants have produced paper No. 28C/2, which is a salary certificate of the deceased. The court below considering the basic pay, dearness allowance and dearness pay, the total of which comes to Rs. 12,674/-. In this way, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,52,088/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards financial expenses of the deceased, the said amount comes to Rs. 1,01,392/-.

The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased between 55 to 60 years and adopted the multiplier of 8%, which appears to be on the higher side. In my opinion, in this case, the just and proper multiplier is ''7'' instead of ''8'' as has been adopted by the Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation.

On the basis of the above, after adopting the multiplier of ''7'' the amount of compensation comes to 101392 X 7 = Rs. 7,09,744/- (rounded Rs. 7,09,800/-). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under different heads shall remain intact. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 7,10,800/-.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 7,10,800/- instead of Rs. 8,21,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest as indicated in the impugned judgment and award.

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.