Sarita Rani vs Neeraj Kaura

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 635 of 1993 filed by the claimants and the other F.A.O. No. 613 of 1993 filed by owner of the offending vehicle.

Jagdish Kumar since deceased was running a Stationery and Book Shop at Rajpura. He was travelling from Patiala to Rajpura on a Scooter bearing registration No. PAP5328 with Adarsh Jain the pillionrider. At about 11 a.m. on 10.7.89 when they reached near village Kheri on PatialaRajpura Road, one Maruti Van No. CHK4842 which was coming from the opposite side and being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road, struck against the scooter. Jagdish Kumar and Adarsh Jain both received injuries and the former died on the spot. The scooter also received serious damages as well. A claim petition was, accordingly filed by the widow and the two minor children of the deceased and it was pleaded that he had been in the business of selling books and stationery for the last 13 years and had been earning about Rs. 2000/ per month on that account. The claim petition was filed against Neeraj Kaura and the Insurance Company at the initial stage.

Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents and various replies were filed. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the written statement was moved on behalf of the United India Insurance Company which wanted to take an additional plea that the Maruti van No. CHK4842 which had been involved in the accident, was at the time of the accident, owned by Madhukar Kaura and the Insurance Policy was also in his name and as the vehicle had been transferred in the name of respondent No. 1Neeraj Kaura on 12th July, 1989 i.e. after the accident, the liability could not be fastened on the Insurance Company.

On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed :

Whether the respondent Neeraj Kaura caused the motor accident on 10.7.1989 in the area of village Kheri on PatialaRajpura road by his rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No. CHK4842 ? OPP.

Whether Jagdish Kumar died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question ? OPP.

Whether Scooter No. PAP5328 was damaged in the accident in question ? OPP.

Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of the loss of life of Jagdish Kumar and damage to the Scooter No. PAP5328, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? OPP

Relief.

The Tribunal came to the conclusion on the basis of the statement made by Mr. Ashok Mathur Advocate appearing for Neeraj Kaurarespondent No. 1 that the policy had been transferred in his name on 12th July, 1989 and that prior to that date, the policy stood in the name of Madhukar Kaura. Various documents in support of this plea were exhibited in court. On going through the matter, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. On issue No. 3, it was found that there was no evidence to indicate that a sum of Rs. 14,000/ had been spent on getting the scooter repaired. The Tribunal also held under Issue No. 4 that the claimant were the heirs of the deceased and by virtue of the various judgments of this Court, the liability to pay the compensation amount stood on the Insurance Company and even though the policy had been transferred in the name of Neeraj Kaura on 12th July, 1989, it would, after transfer, relate back to the date of transfer of the vehicle. Having held as above, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,05,200/ to the claimant to be shared equally by them.

Two appeals have been filed impugning the award one by the claimants seeking higher compensation and the other by the owner of the Maruti Van involved in the accident praying that the liability to pay compensation should be fastened on the Insurance Company.

Mr. N.L. Sammi, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has urged that the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the van stood proved from the evidence on record.

I have gone through this aspect of the matter with the help of the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is fully justified and the same is, accordingly, affirmed.

It has then been argued by Mr. Sammi that it had come in evidence that the deceased was earning about Rs. 2000/ p.m. and the Tribunal had slashed this amount by half and determined the compensation at Rs. 1,05,200/ on the ground that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1000/ p.m. He has urged that this amount would be due to a labourer these days and the deceased who had been in the business of selling books and stationery for the last 13 years either at Rajpura or Patiala, would be in a position to earn much more.

I have gone through this aspect of the matter and find that there is merit in this assertion. It has come in the evidence of Sarita Rani the wife of the deceased and of Adarsh Jain that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/ per month. It has also come in their evidence that the deceased had been in this business for the last 13 years. It can, therefore, safely be presumed from their evidence that the deceased was earning more than Rs. 1000/. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the light of the evidence that has come on record, the income of the deceased should be determined at Rs. 1500/ per month. When this amount is computed in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996(2) RRR 718, the amount would come to Rs. 1,44,000/ which is rounded off to Rs. 1,45,000/.

It has been urged by Mr. Arun Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the van that the amount of compensation was to be paid by the Insurance Company. He has urged that the application for transfer of the vehicle was submitted to the Transferring Authority on 19th June, 1989 whereas the accident had taken place on 10th July, 1989 and that the Registration Certificate issued by the authority on 12th July, 1989 was w.e.f. 19th June, 1989. He has also urged that in the light of these facts, the Insurance Policy stood transferred in the name of Neeraj Kaurarespondent No. 1 w.e.f. 19th June, 1989 i.e. prior to the date of the accident and even assuming that the transfer had taken place on 12th July, 1989, it would nevertheless relate back to the date of the transfer of the vehicle. In this connection, Mr. Jain has placed reliance upon Section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which specifically provides that in case, the vehicle is transferred from one person to another, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the vehicle is transferred from the date of transfer. Mr. Jain has further argued that the Supreme Court in M/s Complete Insulations Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996(1) P.L.R. 202 had gone to the extent of saying that though the accident had taken place prior to the promulgation of the new Act, the benefit of Section 157 of the Act was nevertheless to be given with respect to a third party. In this case, admittedly, the order of transfer of the vehicle was made by the Transferring Authority on 19th June, 1989, though the formal Registration Certificate was issued on 12th July, 1989. Obviously, therefore, the transfer of the vehicle had taken place prior to the date of the accident that is 10th July, 1989. Even taking it to be that the policy stood transferred from 12th July, 1989, the transfer would relate back to 19th June, 1989 in view of the Supreme Court in M/s Complete insulation (supra). I am, therefore, of the opinion that the amount of compensation has to be paid by the Insurance Company.

For the reasons recorded above, these appeals succeed and a compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/ is allowed to the claimants, the same to be paid by the Insurance Company. It is further ordered that the other terms and conditions with regard to compensation would be as determined by the Tribunal. It is further directed that the Insurance Company shall reimburse Neeraj Kaurathe owner of the Car No. CHK4842 to the extent of the compensation that has been recovered from him.

Appeals allowed.