Raghvendra Singh And Others vs Vinay Singh And Others

Hirdesh, J

The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the Award dated 24.09.2017 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bhind (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 1500025/2016. The appeal has been preferred on the grounds of inadequacy of compensation as well as against the finding of the Claims Tribunal holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-, and the remaining amount is to be borne by the owner of the offending vehicle.

The date of accident and issue of negligence are not in dispute. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard are not in question.

As per the findings of the Claims Tribunal, due to death of Abhishek Singh in the motor accident, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,90,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned Award has been passed without proper appreciation of law and evidence. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side. It is further submitted that the deceased was a young man aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. He was pursuing his studies and also engaged in private tuition work, earning approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal failed to consider these aspects and assessed his income at an unreasonably low level. It is also contended that, in the absence of documentary proof, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act applicable at the relevant time. Further, it is urged that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under conventional heads.

Additionally, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in restricting the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs.2,00,000/- only. It is submitted that the insurance policy in question was a Package Policy; therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsels for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of the appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.

Upon perusal of the insurance policy, it is evident that the policy in question is a Package Policy issued on 19.04.2015. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Balakrishnan & Another reported in 2012 Supreme (SC) 807, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 20, 21 and 22 is as under:-

" 20. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually stated thus:-

“In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC’s directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.”

21 . In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act Policy” stands on a different footing from a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.

In view of the aforesaid legal position, the question that emerges for consideration is whether in the case at hand, the policy is an “Act Policy” or “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. There has been no discussion either by the tribunal or the High Court in this regard. True it is, before us, Annexure P-1 has been filed which is a policy issued by the insurer. It only mentions the policy to be a “comprehensive policy” but we are inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of the terms of the entire policy to arrive at the conclusion whether it is really a “package policy” to cover the liability of an occupant in a car."

In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal regarding limited liability of the Insurance Company is unsustainable. It is undisputed that the policy was a Package Policy, as also noted by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the impugned Award. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount. Accordingly, the finding of the Claims Tribunal in this regard is set aside.

With regard to assessment of compensation, on perusal of record of the Claims Tribunal it is found that the claimants have utterly failed to adduce any substantial evidence in regard to income of the deceased. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as an unskilled person in view of the law laid down in the cases of Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar, ILR 2014 MP 172; Kanwar Devi v. Bansal Roadways , 2008 ACJ 2182; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi , (2008) 3 ACC 134 in which it is held that when documentary proof of income is lacking, income is to be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the just and proper amount of the income of the deceased as an unskilled person as per Minimum Wages Act in the present case is Rs.6,239/- per month.

11 . As regard to loss of income including future prospects, in the light of judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 , the claimants are entitled for loss of income including future prospects. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), future prospects @ 40 % be assessed. Further, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , even if age of the deceased is to be taken into account, multiplier of 18 has rightly been applied by Claims Tribunal.

Claimants are also entitled to get consortium in the light of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur and others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131.

13 . Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive compensation under the following heads:-

HEAD

AMOUNT

Income

Rs.6,239 x 12= 74,868/- p.a.

Future Prospects@ 40%

Rs.1,04,815/-

After deducting Dependency 1/2

Rs.52,407/-

Multiplier 18

Rs.9,43,326/-

Other Heads:-

Loss of Consortium

Rs.40,000 X 2 = 80,000/-

Loss of Estate and funeral expenses

Rs.30,000/-

Total Compensation =

Rs.10,53,326/-

Thus, the just and proper amount of compensation payable in the present case comes to Rs.10,53,326/- as against the sum of Rs.5,90,000/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,63,326/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.

In the result, miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified, and the compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs.4,63,326/-. The aforesaid enhanced amount shall carry interest as fixed by Claims Tribunal from the date of deposit of Court fees by the appellants in the present appeal. The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.

16 . In case the enhanced compensation exceeds the valuation of the appeal, the appellants shall deposit the differential Court fee (if not already paid) within a period of one month from today and furnish proof of such payment before the Registry. Upon compliance, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of this order.

In view of the foregoing, the miscellaneous appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of.