Randhir Singh vs Mohan Singh

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, on a claim petition had awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the claimants on account of the death of Sardul Singh who died in a road accident on 8.6.1989.

Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. The award had been challenged primarily on the ground that income of the deceased who was a partner in a firm has not been properly worked out. The other plea is that the offending vehicle was duly insured with M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., As such the liability to pay compensation should have been fastened on the Insurance Company.

Shri R.M. Suri, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that it has not been proved that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company. As such, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.

Mr. V.C. Dogra, counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicles contends that the vehicles was duly insured with the Insurance Company. As such the liability to pay compensation should have been fastened on the Insurance Company.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the view that since the deceased was a partner in the partnership firm, his income from the said source could not be less than Rs. 1,000/- per month. The deceased must be spending Rs. 250/- per month on himself and the remaining Rs. 750/- on the claimants. In view of this, the dependency of the claimants is assessed at Rs. 750/- P.M. i.e. Rs. 9,000/- annually.

The deceased was 65 years of age at the time of accident. There is no error in applying a multiplier of 5. By applying the multiplier of 5 to the dependency of Rs. 9,000/- the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 45,000/- alongwith 12% interest from the date of filing the claim petition. The compensation already awarded is to be adjusted.

From the perusal of the Insurance Police Exhibit R-1 it is observed that the make of the vehicle is mentioned as DCM Tyota and Mohan Singh is shown to be the owner of the vehicle insured. In this view of the matter, it can safely be said that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. Moreso, the Insurance Company at no stage had taken the plea that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. As such the Insurance Company cannot take this plea at this stage. In view of this, the liability to pay compensation is fastened on the Insurance Company.

The appeal is allowed and the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Ludhiana, is modified to the extent indicated above.

No order as to costs.