Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sunita Pandey

Rakesh Garg, J.—This judgment shall dispose of FAO Nos. 1913 and 2886 of 2012 and Cross Objections Nos. 86 and 88-CII of 2012 as both the appeals as well as cross objections have arisen out of one common Award dated 19.10.2011 of the MACT, Panipat in Claim Petition No. 162 of 2011 which has been filed by the claimants for grant of compensation on account of death of their son Satyam Pandey as a result of motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by Balwant Singh, driver of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor No. HYD-2094, owned by Deep Chand, respondent no. 5 in FAO No. 1913 of 2012, which was duly insured with the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

According to the claimants, on 15.9.2009, deceased Satyam Pandey after attending the morning shift in Government Polytechnic College, Manesar, (where he was student of IInd Year of Diploma of Automobiles) was present in front of his college along with his classmate Sandeep Sharma. They took lift on aforesaid tractor bearing No. HYD-2094. Said tractor was carrying a trolley loaded with bailies (battens). Both of them sat on separate mud-guards of the tractor which was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent-Balwant Singh negligently and rashly. When the tractor reached about one kilometer away from the college, the driver lost control and the tractor fell in a ditch after hitting tree. The deceased Satyam Pandey came underneath the rear tyre of the tractor and received injuries. The deceased was shifted to Pushpanjli Hospital, Gurgaon and from there, he was brought to Government Hospital, Gurgaon, but was declared dead. Sandeep Sharma also received minor injuries. FIR No. 199 dated 15.9.2009 was registered in Police Station Manesar, District Gurgaon for rash and negligent driving of driver, Balwant Singh. It was also averred that at the time of accident, deceased was 18 years of age. He was student of 2nd Year of Automobile Diploma in Government Polytechnic College, Manesar, Gurgaon. He used to give tuitions to other students and earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was claimed as funeral expenses. Further, a sum of Rs. 20 lacs was claimed as compensation by the parents, being the legal heirs of the deceased.

The driver of the vehicle controverted the claim of the claimants. The accident was denied stating that a false case was got registered against him in collusion with the local police with a view to extract compensation. It was pleaded that no accident had taken place with tractor No. HYD-2094 driven by him. It was further averred that the tractor was not owned by Dilbag Singh, respondent no. 4, at the time of accident and Deep Chand son of Shiv Narain was the owner thereof on the date of accident. It was also stated that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. It was further pleaded that Balwant Singh, respondent no. 3, was driving the tractor at a moderate speed by observing traffic rules but suddenly a wild cow came in front of the tractor and in order to save it, he applied the brakes, due to which the tractor got imbalanced and turned turtle in the pit adjacent to the road. In this way, respondent Balwant Singh was not at fault and the accident might have taken place with another vehicle.

Deep Chand, respondent no. 5, filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the claimants stating that no accident took place with the tractor in question and a false claim was filed. It was further submitted that respondent no. 4 had sold the tractor to respondent no. 5 and the same was also transferred in his name and thus, he was the registered owner of the tractor, however, it was denied that he was liable to pay the compensation. All other averments were denied.

The appellant-Insurance Company filed its separate written statement, disputing the claim of the claimants. It was stated that the tractor in question was not involved in the accident and the same was falsely got involved by the claimants in order to claim compensation. It was further stated that respondent Balwant Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Moreover, the deceased was sitting on the mud-guard of the tractor as gratuitous passenger and thus, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle Tractor bearing No. HYD-2094 by respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPP

Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the insured violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPR-3

Relief.

In the evidence of petitioners, Sunita Pandey appeared as PW1 and they also examined Sandeep Sharma as PW2 besides producing documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P12 and Mark-A.

On the other hand, in the evidence of respondents, documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R3 have been placed on record.

The Tribunal on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record by the claimants, which remained unrebutted and unchallenged, held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver Balwant Singh. The Tribunal further found that the Insurance Company has failed to substantiate its plea of driving licence of Balwant Singh to be fake and thus, issue no. 4 was decided against it.

While determining the compensation payable to the claimants on account of death of Satyam Pandey, the Tribunal keeping in view the age of the deceased, assessed his income at Rs. 4,000/- per month and applied a cut of 50% on his income for his personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried and was likely to get married within 5/6 years and after his marriage, he would not have been able to provide same financial assistance to his parents as he could do earlier. Thereafter, the multiplier of 15 was applied and compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- was calculated. The Tribunal further allowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- was held to be payable to the claimants. The Tribunal further found that the deceased was sitting on mudguard of the tractor in question when the accident took place and there was no term in the policy for indemnifying such a claim arising out of such an accident and thus, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured. Consequently, respondents i.e. driver Balwant Singh and owner Deep Chand were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. It was further ordered that in the first instance, the appellant insurance company shall make payment of the compensation to the claimants but it would be entitled to recover the same from the insured i.e. Deep Chand.

The appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company has filed FAO No. 1913 of 2012 alleging that the compensation payable to the claimants was on the higher side, as there was no proof of income of the deceased and even the multiplier applied was also on higher side. In the aforesaid appeal, cross-objections No. 88-CII of 2012 have been filed by the claimants, claiming much higher compensation.

FAO No. 2886 of 2012 has been filed by Deep Chand son of Shiv Narain, disputing his liability to pay the compensation.

Cross-objections No. 86-CII of 2012 have also been filed in the aforesaid appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

At the outset, it may be noticed that the insurance company has filed the instant appeal challenging the award only on the ground that the compensation has been assessed at a higher rate and the same is liable to be reduced. However, nothing could be pointed out as to how the award of the Tribunal was incorrect in this regard.

Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the insurance company is not liable to make payment of compensation, as the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms of the insurance policy and therefore, no liability should have been fixed upon the appellant.

However, it may be noticed that the vehicle in question was admittedly insured and on account of that, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation in respect of the third party. Since the insurance company has been given the recovery rights against the owner/driver, no fault can be found in the impugned award.

Similarly, in the appeal of Deep Chand i.e. FAO No. 2886 of 2012, the grievance of Deep Chand is that recovery should be made from the driver also. However, it may be noticed that the driver is none else but the servant of Deep Chand and Deep Chand was vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of his driver Balwant Singh. Not only this, the Tribunal has also held that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation from Deep Chand as well as the driver. Thus, the appeal is without any merit, as he has been held responsible jointly and severally along with driver Balwant Singh. Resultantly, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

The objections filed on behalf of the claimants in both these appeals for enhancement of compensation are liable to be rejected, as a fair and just compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Satyam Pandey who was just 17 years of age at the time of his death. Admittedly, he was a student and was not having any income. His income has been assessed at Rs. 4,000/- without any evidence. Moreover, multiplier of 15 has also been applied keeping in view the age of the claimants as well as other facts and the same do not require any interference by this Court.

No other point has been raised.

In view thereof, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

Dismissed.