The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Gaurav Pant and Others

B.C. Kandpal, J.—This appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 24.05.2007 passed by the M.A.C.T./Additional District Juste/1st Fast Track Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in MAC. Petition No. 119 of 2006, Gaurav Pant v. Chand Pandey and Ors.

Brief facts of the case are that on 06.11.2005, the claimant - Gaurav Pant was going along with Atul Joshi in the search of his Dumper at Gaula River. When they reached near Bachidharam Doliya School, suddenly, Dumper (Truck) No. HR51GA/0947, which was being driven by Gukul Singh in a very rash and negligent manner, in order to save a child, hit the claimant, due to which he sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in the Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani where his little finger was amputated. Thereafter he was referred to another hospital for better treatment where his index finger was also amputated. The report of the accident was lodged by Atul Joshi at police station Lalkuan. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation.

Opposite party No. 1 - Puran Chandra Pandey - owner of Dumper (Truck) No. HR51G/0947 contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal alleging therein that vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. It has further alleged that on the date of accident, the driver - Hukum Singh was having the valid and effective driving licence. It has also pleaded that the accident took place in order to save the child, in which the Applicant sustained injuries. The Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation, if any.

Opposite party No. 2/Appellant - The New India Assurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing written statement denying most of the allegations made in the claim petition. It has also pleaded that the vehicle in question was not insured with the Company. It was the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle to proof registration certificate, fitness certificate, road permit, driving licence and Insurance Policy before the Tribunal, thereafter only, the liability of compensation lies upon the insurer. It has further alleged that the insurer was not having any information about the accident as provided u/s 158(6) of the Motor Vehicle Act, therefore, the claim petition against the Insurer was liable to be dismissed. The Driver - Humum Singh was impleaded as party vide court''s order dated 29.03.2007 and he also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement alleging therein that the accident took place in order to save a school child.

On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,95,670/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual date of payment vide judgment and award dated 24.05.2007.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this Court.

Heard Sri R.B. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Sri I.S. Mehra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

As far as the factum of accident is concerned, learned Counsel for the Appellant has not raised any submission. The Tribunal on the basis of the material available on record as well as considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident took placed due to rash and negligent driving of the Dumper (Truck) No. HR51GA/0947 and there is no dispute on this point. From the perusal of paper No. 40C, submitted by the driver of the offending vehicle Hukum Singh, it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle in question was having the valid driving licence from 07.01.2005 upto 06.01.2006. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal while deciding the issue No. 2 need not require any interference. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the Tribunal has committed illegality while taking the income of the injured/claimant as Rs. 4,500/- in the absence of any evidence. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has also taken the multiplier of ''18'', which appears to be irrelevant in this case. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be dismissed. No other point has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

In order to resolve the sole controversy, I have gone through the entire record. According to the claimant/injured, he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but he could not produce any evidence, which may support his version. It has further alleged that he was the owner of the Dumper. As far as the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Tribunal has taken the income of the injured/claimant on the higher side, I do not find any force in the submission. The Tribunal in order to calculate the income of the claimant/injured considered that the driver of the Dumper used to earn Rs. 100/- per day and on the basis of this came to the conclusion that the owner of the Dumper might have earned Rs. 150/- per day and taken into account monthly income of the claimant/injured to Rs. 4,500/- as he was the owner of the Dumper. Further the Tribunal considering the age of the injured as 25 years has rightly considered the multiplier of ''18'' as per schedule mentioned in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The method adopted by the Tribunal appears to be perfectly justified. In this way, the Tribunal considered the annual income of the injured as Rs. 54,000/- per annum and total amount comes to Rs. 9,72,000/- (54000 � 18). It is further clear from the perusal of paper No. 22C that the deceased suffered disability of 28%, therefore, the Tribunal on the basis of the disability certificate rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,72,160/- (972000 � 28/100) as compensation. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount considering the evidence available on record. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly reasonable/The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Consequently, in view of the observations made by me in the body of the judgment, the cross objection filed by the claimant is also dismissed.

The statutory amount deposited by the Appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.