Surinder Pal vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

R.L. Anand, J.—Owners Surinder Pal and M/s Goyal Trading Corporation have filed the present L.P.A. No. 126 of 1987, which is directed against the judgment dated 3rd December, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the appeal of the truck owners but allowed the appeal of the claimants and enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 1,50,000/- as against Rs. 1,15,200/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal to the legal representatives of the deceased Shri Inderjit Singh, who was killed when the motor-cycle on which he was travelling was involved in an accident with truck No. PNB-7631.

Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Joginder Kaur, Smt. Ravinder Kaur, Miss Kiran Deep, Miss Raman Deep and Shri Fauja Singh filed the claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against Shri Surinder Pal, M/s Goyal Trading Corporation, Hari Om and the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., Jalandhar, for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,76,000/~ on account of the death of Inderjit Singh, aged about 32 years, who died in a motor vehicle acci- dent, when the motor-cycle on which he was travelling, was involved in an accident with truck No. PNB-7631 belonging to M/s Goyal Trading Corporation and Shri Surinder Pal, when it was being driven by Shri Hari Om.

Inderjit Singh deceased and Charan Singh were going to Chatiwind on a motor cycle being driven by Charan Singh from Bhagtanwala side. The truck in question came from the opposite direction near the circular road, which was being driven by Hari Om rashly and negligently. It was being driven on the wrong side of the road, while the deceased and Charan Singh were going on the correct side of the road. It is alleged by the claimants that the driver of the truck did not sound any horn and dashed the truck into the motor-cycle, causing multiple injuries to Inderjit Singh as well as to Charan Singh. Both the injured were removed to Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar. Later on Inderjit Singh died on 27th April, 1981 due to the injuries. The Police came to the Hospital and a criminal case u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the statement of Charan Singh. Further it was pleaded by the claimants before the Tribunal that Inderjit Singh deceased was working as Inspector in the Cooperative Societies Department at Patti and his monthly salary was Rs. 996.50, including all the allowances. The claimants were de- pendents of the deceased, being parents, widow and the children.

The claim Petition was contested by the owners. The driver Hari-Om did not appear before the Tribunal despite personal service and he was proceeded ex arte. It was admitted by the owners of the truck that it was involved in the accident. However, it was pleaded by the owners that the claimants had no cause of action in their favour so as to claim any compensation.

The Insurance Co. also filed a separate written statement. It admitted that the truck in question was insured with it and that the policy of insurance was valid from 13.9.1980 to 12.9.1981. However, it denied its liability on the plea that the truck in question was being driven rashly and negligently. In the alternative it was pleaded by the Insurance Co. that its liability was only limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. The driver of the motor-cycle was driving it rashly and negligently. He could not control the motor-cycle, although the driver of the truck applied brakes and he gave horn and that he was driving it at a slow speed.

On the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the applicants are the L.Rs. and dependents of Inderjit Singh deceased ? OPA

Whether the accident took place by rash and negligent driving of the truck No. PBN-7631 by Hari Om, defendant No. 3, while in the employment of respondents No. 1 and 2, which resulted into the death of Inderjit Singh ? OPA.

Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ? OPA.

Relief."

The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 25th February, 1983 allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs. 1,15,200/- to claimants in equal shares against the respondents, who were ordered to pay the compensation jointly and severally. However, the liability of the Insurance Co. was fixed to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and it was directed to pay the said amount along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of filing of the petition, to the claimants.

Aggrieved by the award dated 25th February, 1983, Surinder Singh and M/s Goyal Trading Corporation filed first appeal. The claimants also filed the appeal and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. Both the appeals were disposed of vide the impugned judgment dated 3rd December, 1986 and the learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,15,200/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- and it was ordered that this amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the parents of the deceased, Rs. 30,000/- each shall be paid to the children and the balance amount was ordered to be paid to the widow- So far as the liability of the insurance company was concerned, it was ordered that it would pay Rs. 50,000/-.

Not satisfied with the decision of the learned Single Judge the Owners of the truck have filed the present L.P.A.

The Challenge has been given to the Judgment mostly on the ground that the learned Single Judge committed a Patent illegality and fell in error when he fixed the liability of the Insurance Co. It was, inter alia, stated in the grounds of appeal that the onus was upon the Insurance Co. to prove that it had a limited liability of Rs. 50,000/- and that the Insurance Co. did not produce any record, nor it led any evidence before the Tribunal to establish that it was liable to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. In the absence of any evidence, the liability of the Insurance Co. should be treated as unlimited. We do not see any merit in this argument. A specific pleas had been raised by the Insurance Co. before the Tribunal that it had limited liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and the policy of Insurance was also placed on record. After perusal of the evidence, the Tribunal gave the finding that the liability of the Insurance Co. was limited to that extent. In these circumstances, the owners of the truck, to whom the original insurance policy was issued, could place on the record before the Tribunal to rebut the stand of the Insurance Co. This aspect of the case has also been disposed of by the Tribunal in Para No. 18 of the award reproduced as follows :-

"The question to be next decided is as to from whom the applicants are entitled to recover this amount. Ex.R1 is the copy of the Insurance Policy in respect of the offending truck PBN-7631. This policy covers the liability upto Rs. 50,000/- and it was in force at the time of the accident. It is apparent from the policy Ex.R1 that it was valid from 13.9.1980 to 12.9.1981. According to the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is liable to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only..."

The question to be next decided is as to from whom the applicants are entitled to recover that amount. Exhibit R1 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. In respect of the offending truck No. PBN-7631. This policy covers the liability upto Rs. 50,000/- and it was in force at the time of the accident. It is apparent from the Policy Exhibit R1 that it was valid from 13.9.1980 to 12.9.1981. According to the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is liable to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only. It was a special contract between the Insurance Co. and the owners and in these circumstances, the Insurance Co. could not b made responsible for more than Rs. 50,000/-, unless there are special terms to the contrary. The appellants, who purchased the insurance Policy, did not produce any satisfactory evidence before the Tribunal that the liability of the Insurance Co. was unlimited or that it was obliged to pay the compensation beyond Rs. 50,000/-. The Insurance co. before the Tribunal rightly discharged the onus. Learned Single Judge also took note of this submission in the impugned judgment and has rightly dealt with the point in the following terms:-

"In dealing with this matter, it would be pertinent to note that it was on the basis of the Insurance Policy filed on record that the Tribunal held the liability of the Insurance Company to be limited to Rs. 50,000/-. Had an incomplete Policy been filed it is reasonable to assume that such an objection would have been raised before the Tribunal and not for the first time in this Court. It is also pertinent to note here that no such objection finds mention in the grounds of appeal. These circumstances do indeed lend plausibility to the plea now put forth on behalf of the Insurance Company that a complete policy of Insurance had been placed on record that part of it was now missing. At any rate, in the circumstances, interest of justice also render it incumbent that a certified copy of the policy of insurance be now allowed to be placed on record. It is accordingly so ordered."

The next ground in the L.P.A. is that the learned Single Judge erred in enhancing the compensation upto Rs. 1,50,000/-. Elaborating this submission it has been stated by the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 900/- per month and in these circumstances the fixing of dependency at Rs. 9,000/- per year of the claimants was erroneous. The tribunal has assessed the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs. 7,200/- in para No. 17 of the award. It is the proved case of the claimants that Inderjit Singh deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of his death. According to the statement of A.W.2 Shri Ravi Kumar, Clerk, coming from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the deceased was employed as Inspector Cooperative Societies in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 and his total emoluments at the time of his death were Rs. 980/- per month. In these circumstances the multiplier of 16 years was rightly applied by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge. The deceased was supposed to support his wife, children and parents. In these circumstances he must be paying sufficient amount in the family, so that his family members could lead a respectable life. If the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 12,000/- approximately, being the earning hand, the deceased must be spending Rs. 3,000/- on his personal expenses. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the learned Single Judge committed an illegality when he calculated the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 9,000/- per year and by applying the multiplier of 16 years, he calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- and to make it a round figure, the learned Single Judge raised the award to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The relevant observations of the learned Single Judge are reproduced as follows :-

" Next to consider is the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. They being Ravinder Kaur, the young widow of the deceased, and their two minor children Kiran Deep, aged 9, and Raman Deep, who was 6 years old. Besides this, there are his parents, who were about 67 ears of age at the time of the accident. Inderjit Singh deceased was about 32 years of age at the time of his death and accordingly to AW-2 Ravi Kumar, clerk from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patti, he was employed as Inspector, Co-operative Societies, in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 and his total emoluments at the time of his death were Rs. 980/- per month. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh and Anr. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors. (1979)81 P.L.R. 1, in the context of the circumstances and situation of the claimants and the deceased there can be no manner of doubt that 16 was clearly appropriate multiplier to be applied. As regards the dependency this deserves to be taken at Rs. 9,000/- per annum after making due allowance for the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself as also the fixed expenses in the house-hold which are not really affected by the members of the house-hold being increased or decreased by one e.g. house rent, water and electricity charges, furnishing and the like. The compensation payable to the claimants thus deserves to be enhanced accordingly to Rs. 1,50,000/- (to make it a round figure instead of Rs. 1,44,000/-)."

No other point was taken up on the grounds of appeal.

Resultantly, we affirm the findings of the learned Single Judge on all aspects and dismiss the present L.P.A. leaving the parties to bear their own costs.