Teja Singh and Another vs New India Insurance Co. and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—On September 22, 1980, Inderjit Singh, a teacher at the Government Higher Secondary School, Garh Shanker, was killed while driving his motor cycle when tractor PUC-5784 came and hit into it. This happened on the Chamkaur Sahiv-Patiala Road.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of Manjit Singh, the driver of the tractor, A sum of Rs. 84,000 was awarded as compensation to the children of Inderjit Singh, the deceased. The claim of his parents and widow was, however", dismissed as being barred by time. As fegards liability for the amount awarded, this was held to be limited to Rs. 50,000 in the case of the insurance company with which the offending tractor was insured, the balance being payable by the driver and owner of the tractor. This is now sought to be challenged in appeal on the plea that the liability of the insurance company extended to the entire amount awarded. The claimants, on their part, have questioned the denial of compensation to the parents and widow of the deceased and also seek enhanced compensation.

As regards the point of limitation, the accident as mentioned earlier, had taken place on September 22, 1980. The claim application was filed on July 21, 1981. In the accompanying application for condonation of delay, it was stated that Surjit Kaur, the widow of the deceased, had suffered shock and on that account she had been under strain and had also been admitted in different hospitals on different occasions. The parents of the deceased too could not file the claim having lost their only bread-earner. Further, the claimants were under the impression that the limitation for the filing of the claim application was one year. Condonation of the delay was, however, opposed by the driver and owner of the tractor.

In support of the issue framed with regard to limitation, there is on record the solitary but unrebutted statement of the claimant, P.W.-4, Surjit Kaur, the widow of the deceased, that she could not file the petition in time as she remained ill for a long time and also for the reason that her mother had died about seven months after the death of her husband. A reading of her cross-examination would show that there is no material there to warrant any doubt being created in her testimony regarding her illness. Further, it is also pertinent to note that Inderjit Singh, the deceased, was the sole bread-earner in the family. He died leaving behind his aged parents and minor children besides his widow. Such being the situation and circumstances of the claimants, the Tribunal clearly erred in declining to condone the delay in the filing of the claim application. The delay is accordingly hereby condoned.

As regards the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, a reading of the testimony of P.W. 3, Parma Nand, clerk in the Government Higher Secondary School, Garh Shanker, would show that the total emoluments of Inderjit Singh, the deceased, at the time of his death were over Rs. 1,400 per month and he was only 42 years of age at that time. According to P.W.-4, Surjit Kaur, his widow, she, her children and the parents of the deceased were wholly dependent upon the earnings of Inderjit Singh. Surjit Kaur was about 39 years of age and their four children, three daughters and a son ranged in age from 5 to 16 years, while the parents of the deceased were 65 to 70 years of age at the time of his death.

Taking an overall view of the circumstances of the claimants and the deceased, in the context, of the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachhman Singh and Others Vs. Gurmit Kaur and Others, must undoubtedly be taken to be the appropriate multiplier to be applied here and the dependency deserves to be assessed at around Rs, 12,000 per annum. This would work out to Rs. 1,92,000 which may be rounded off to Rs. 2,00,000 (Rs. two lakhs only) The compensation payable to the claimants must accordingly be enhanced to this extent. The claimants shall also be entitled to this sum along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded. Out of the amount awarded, a sum of Rs. 20,000 each shall be payable to the parents and the children of the deceased and the balance to his widow. The amount payble to the minor claimants shall be paid to them in such manner as the Tribunal may decide to be in their best interest.

The matter that now remains to be considered is with regard to the extent of liability of the insurance company, the contention of Mr. G. S. Chawla, counsel for the insurance company, being ''that it was limited to Rs. 50,000. A reference to the record shows that a specific plea was raised that the liability of the insurance company was limited to this extent and the policy of insurance has also been placed on record. The stress here was upon the column " Limits of liability "against which as regards Section II(1)(i), it was mentioned " such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939." The judgment of D. V. Sehgal J. in Piara Singh Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Gera and Others, was cited as a precedent to show that by these words, the maximum liability of the insurance company was Rs. 50,000. This contention, though attractive on the face of it, cannot stand scrutiny as the vehicle involved in the accident in the present case was a tractor and counsel for the insurance company was consequently constrained to accept that this case fell u/s 95(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, where the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. This being so, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the liability of the insurance company extends to the entire amount awarded. In other words, the driver, owner and insurance company concerned are jointly and severally liable for the compensation awarded.

In the result, both the appeals and the cross-objection filed by the claimants are hereby accepted. The claimants shall be entitled to their costs in this appeal. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500.