New India Assurance Company Limited vs Jyoti Bala And Others

,

Sandeep Sharma, J",

Instant petition filed under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, ‘Act’) lays challenge to Award dated 29.9.2016, passed by",

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Una, District Una, in M.A.C. Petition No. 52/2013/2012, whereby learned tribunal below, while allowing",

claim petition under S.166 of the Act, having been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3/claimants (hereinafter, ‘claimants’), saddled the",

appellant-Insurance company with the liability to pay a compensation of Rs.8,24,940/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9%, to the claimants.",

Facts, as emerge from the record are that the claimants, by way of petition under S.166 of the Act, filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal",

(III), Una, District Una, claimed a sum of Rs. 10.00 Lakh as compensation on account of death of Smt. Saroj Kumari, who happened to be the mother",

of claimants Nos. 1 and 2 and wife of claimant No.3. According to the claimants, on 28.1.2011, respondent No.3 Lahori Ram had gone to Nanda",

Hospital alongwith his deceased wife, Saroj Kumari on motor cycle bearing registration No. HP19A-5708 but, while they were returning back to their",

home, a truck bearing registration No.HP64-6796, hit the motor cycle, as a consequence of which respondent No.3 and the deceased Saroj Kumari",

fell down on road and rear wheel of the truck crushed the head of the deceased, who died on the spot. Claimants Nos. 1 to 3 being dependent upon",

the deceased, filed claim petition before learned tribunal below, claiming compensation on account of mental agony and loss of love and affection.",

Besides above, claimants also claimed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- spent by them on account of transportation of body of deceased from the hospital to",

Village Nakroh.,

Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 being owner and driver of the vehicle filed a joint reply to the claim petition, claiming that the claimants are not entitled",

for any compensation because they were not dependent upon the deceased. Respondents though admitted that at the time of accident, vehicle was",

being driven by its driver, respondent No. 5, Jaswinder Singh, but denied that the accident took place on the relevant date, time and place.",

Appellant-Insurance company, refuted the claim on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP64-6796 was not",

holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. Besides above, appellant-Insurance",

company also took a stand that since at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy and",

the Act, it cannot be saddled with the liability to indemnify the insured.",

On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, learned tribunal below framed following issues on 13.3.2014:-",

“1. Whether on 28.01.2011 at around 2.00PM .. chowk at Jhalera, the respondent No.2 was driving vehicle No. HP-64-6796 in a rash",

and negligent manner and by his rash and negligent driving, hit Smt. Saroj Kumari, who later on succumbed to injuries, as alleged? OPP",

If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP",

Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR,

Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR,

Whether the driver of truck No. HP-64-6796 was not holding valid and effective driving license? OPR-3,

Whether the truck in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3,

Whether the present petition is result of collusion between petitioners and respondents No. 1 & 2? OPR-3,

Relief:â€​,

Subsequently, vide impugned Award dated 29.9.2016, learned tribunal below, on the basis of evidence led on record by respective parties, allowed",

the claim petition and saddled the appellant-Insurance company with the compensation of Rs.8,24,940/- to be paid to respondents Nos. 1 to 3",

alongwith simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization. In the aforesaid background,",

appellant-Insurance company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.,

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that primarily challenge to the impugned",

award has been laid by the appellant-Insurance company on two grounds viz., (1) amount awarded under conventional heads is on higher side and is",

against the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 and",

(2) since the vehicle in question was being driven by its driver without any valid and effective driving licence, learned Tribunal below ought not have",

burdened the appellant-Insurance Company with the compensation to be awarded to the claimants.,

Though, careful perusal of the Award impugned in the instant proceedings, certainly reveals that learned Tribunal below, while awarding certain",

amounts under the conventional heads has failed to take note of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), however, having",

carefully scanned the evidence available on record, this Court finds no merit in the other grounds raised by appellant-Insurance Company. Since the",

complainants have successfully proved on record that at the time of alleged accident, respondent No.5 i.e. driver was having valid and effective",

driving licence and vehicle in question was not being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, appellant-Insurance",

Company has been rightly held liable to indemnify the insured.,

Though, in the instant case, appellant-Insurance Company has made an attempt to carve out a case that the claimants were unable to prove that the",

deceased Saroj Kumari expired after being hit by the truck in question, but there is overwhelming evidence available on record, suggestive of the fact",

that on the date of alleged accident, the offending vehicle hit the motor cycle being driven by claimant No.3, as a consequence of which, respondent",

No.3 as well as deceased, Saroj Kumari sustained serious injuries. Moreover, this Court finds from the record that the appellant-Insurance Company",

did not lead any evidence in this case, and as uch, there appears to be no occasion for this Court to accept the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf",

of the appellant-Insurance Company, at this stage.",

However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, while referring to Pranay Sethi (supra) argued that the amount",

awarded under the heads of loss of love and affection is wrong and further higher amounts have been awarded under the heads of loss of consortium,

and funeral charges are on higher side. In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:",

“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-",

Head,Amount

Loss of dependency (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only),599940

Loss of estate (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only),15000

Funeral charges (to claimants Nos. 1 to 3 only),15000

Total,629940

Loss of consortium payable to claimant No.3,40000

Total compensation,669940