AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.
These two appeals respectively by the Insurer and the claimants of deceased Chevendra Sudhakar are directed against the same judgment and award dated 8th October, 2009, passed in MVC No. 7018/2007, by the XVI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, (SCCH-14).
While the Insurer has filed the appeal, seeking to set aside the direction issued by the Tribunal to indemnify the award, the claimants of deceased Chevendra Sudhakar have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal at Rs. 30,68,000/- on account of the death of deceased Chevendra Sudhakar, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident is on the lower side.
On account of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased Chevendra Sudhakar, the claimants, who are none other than the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased filed claim petition in M.V.C. No. 7018/2007. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 8th October, 2009. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 30,68,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on account of the death of deceased with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, in directing the Insurer to indemnify the entire award, the Insurer has filed M.F.A. No. 1583/2010 and being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants of deceased have filed M.F.A. No. 2186/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by Insurer as well as claimants and heard the learned counsel appearing for Insurer and also the claimants, for quite some time.
Shri. K. Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for Insurer at the outset submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the driver of the bus which caused the accident was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and hence, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. Further, it is the case of the Insurer that the Tribunal has not properly considered the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the Insurer and also several judgments produced by the Insurer and ignoring the documents completely, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the passenger vehicle did possess the licence to drive HGV, MGV and LMV and not HPV. It is the further case of the Insurer that the Tribunal has failed to consider the oral evidence of R.W. 2, an official from RTO office, who has clearly deposed that the licence held by the driver authorized him to drive LMV, HGV, MGV and motor car and the said Driver was not authorized to drive Heavy Passenger Vehicle. It is also the case of the Insurer that the Tribunal grossly erred in not noticing that under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person driving a vehicle in public place is supposed to hold an effective Driving licence, authorizing him to drive the same and also failed to note that possession of an effective Driving Licence is necessary in terms of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes the form and contents of licences and classes of vehicles to drive. All these aspects of the matter have not been looked into or considered by Tribunal, while deciding the matter. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for claimants of deceased inter alia submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation on account of the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. To substantiate the same, he vehemently submitted that the deceased aged about only 32 years, working as a Staff Consultant, earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month and the Tribunal has failed to assess the reasonable income of the deceased and that the income assessed is contrary to the documentary evidence produced by the claimants at Ex. P10, pay slip. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency as also towards conventional heads.
Regarding the liability fixed on the part of the Insurer, learned counsel appearing for claimants vehemently submitted that the third respondent has filed the application for production of additional documents to substantiate the prayer sought in the claim petition, wherein he has categorically stated that he has got the copy of the bus driving licence Badge bearing No. 12496 issued by Thana RTO, Maharashtra, Driving Licence bearing Registration No. MH-04/19820009369 and photocopy of the Driving Licence valid till 20-08-2010. Due to ill-health, he could not attend the Court below and therefore, he has been treated ex-parte before the Tribunal. On persuasion of the claimants, they have made sincere efforts to trace the third respondent, apprised the matter to him and he has whole heartedly come forward and is represented through a counsel before this Court and filed these documents along with I.A. No. 1/2015. Taking these aspects into consideration, he submits that the claimants can make out a case in their favour that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bus, insured with the Insurer. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the jurisdictional Tribunal, for reconsideration afresh and all the grounds urged by the parties be left open, reserving liberty to the claimants and third respondent to file necessary application for adducing additional evidence.
After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer and also the learned counsel appearing for claimants, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it emerges that, occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is further not in disputed that the vehicle in question is duly insured with the insurer and the same is valid. The only dispute is, whether the driver of the offending vehicle possessed the valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. In view of the production of additional documents by way of application, I.A. No. 1/2015 and since the said application is allowed by this Court, we are of the firm opinion that the veracity or other wise of the said documents has to be substantiated by adducing oral and documentary evidence, which can be gone into only by the Tribunal as the said documents were not produced before the Tribunal, at the first instance. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for claimants and the third respondent, the matter requires reconsideration afresh by the Tribunal.
Further, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for claimants and learned counsel appearing for third respondent, learned counsel appearing for Insurer fairly submitted that in the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for claimants and third respondent, the matter may be remanded back to Tribunal for reconsideration afresh, reserving liberty to the Insurer to cross examine the witnesses to be examined by the claimants and third respondent and also mark the said documents, with a direction to the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders, after hearing the parties concerned.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated above, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, it would suffice for this Court if the matter is remanded back to the jurisdictional Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of all the parties concerned, with a direction to it to reconsider the matter and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible.
In the light of the discussion made above and in the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by Insurer as well as the appeal filed by the claimants are allowed.
"The impugned judgment and award dated 8th October, 2009, passed in MVC No. 7018/2007, by the XVI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, (SCCH-14), is hereby set aside;
The matter stands remanded back to the jurisdictional Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter afresh and to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties, personally or through their counsel and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, not later than four months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Without there being any notice, the claimants of deceased Chevendra Sudhakar, Insurer and also the third respondent are directed to appear before the jurisdictional Tribunal on 15-06-2015, at 11:00 A.M., personally, or through their counsel to collect further dates of hearing;
Parties are permitted to file necessary application/s, for adducing additional evidence, oral/documentary, to substantiate their respective cases within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
In case such application/s is/are filed by the learned counsel for the parties, within the time stipulated above, the jurisdictional Tribunal is directed to receive the same and proceed further and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of the direction given by this Court, as above;
All the contentions of all the parties are left open;
Registry is directed to return the entire original records, if any, received to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Registry is also directed to transmit the entire amount deposited by the Insurer, including the statutory amount in M.F.A. No. 1583/2010 to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith;
Upon such transmit by the Registry, the jurisdictional Tribunal, in turn, shall invest the same in any nationalized/scheduled/Grameena Bank, until the final judgment to be passed by the jurisdictional Tribunal, after remand;"
In view of matter being allowed and remanded to jurisdictional Tribunal for fresh disposal, I.A. No. 2/2014 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.