AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Joshi, counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, counsel for the respondents. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
By the present A.O. filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appellant has prayed for setting aside the award dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 314 of 1987 Shri Sohan Singh v. Sunil Kumar and Ors., whereby a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been awarded to the claimant along with interest @ 15% per annum.
Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 314 of 1987 Shri Sohan Singh v. Sunil Kumar and Ors. claiming a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-.
According to the claimants, on 29.7.1987 Dalbahadur (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was going to Dakpathar from Harbartpur by Bus No. UPS 8476 (hereinafter referred to as the Bus in question) due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus in question caused accident and fell down into a Canal. In this accident, the deceased died.
Owner of the Bus in question has filed a written statement stating therein that neither the accident had taken place at 19.45 hours on 29th July, 1987 and nor the deceased was traveling in the Bus in question. It has also been stated that the Bus in question was comprehensively insured with the New India Assurance Company including legal liability to passengers vide Policy No. 4549106225. It has further been stated that the amount claimed towards compensation is excessive. It has also been stated that at the time of accident, the accident occurred due to sudden appearance of some cattle on the road.
The Insurer in its written statement has denied the allegations made by the claimant in the claim petition and has stated that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Further it has been stated that the amount claimed towards compensation is excessive.
On the pleadings of the parties, the claims tribunal has framed following issues:
1& D;k fookfnr nq?kZVuk fnukad 29&7&87 dks xkM+h ua0 ;w0ih0,l0 8476 ds M�kbZoj e`rd vkse izdk''k ds rsth o ykijokgh ls cukus ds dkj.k gqbZ \\
2& izkFkhZx.k fdruk eqvkotk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS vkSj fdl i{k ls \\
3& D;k foi{kh ua0 2 dh ftEesnkjh dh lhek dsoy 15000 :i;s rd gS \\
4& D;k izkFkZuk i= pyus ds ;ksX; ugh gS tSlk fd foi{kh ua0 1 ds tokcnkos ds iSjk 19 esa dgk x;k gS \\
5& vuqrks"k A
On behalf of the claimants, Sohan and Sundar Singh Negi have been examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 respectively. On behalf of the opposite parties, Ram Chandra Saxena, Sunil Kumar and Mohit Goyal have been examined as D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.5 respectively.
While deciding the Issue No. 1 as to whether on 29.7.1987, the deceased Om Prakash died due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus No. U.P.S. 8476, the claims tribunal has placed reliance on the statement of P.W. 2 Sunder Singh Negi-ocular witness. He has stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus in question. D.W.2 Ram Chandra has stated that the Bus fell down into the Canal for saving the cattle. Relying upon the aforesaid statement, the claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. U.P.S. 8476. This point has been decided in affirmative.
While deciding the Issues No. 2 and 3 with regard to quantum of compensation, the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation as a lumpsum amount in absence of the documentary proof of the income of the deceased.
While deciding the Issue No. 5 with regard to relief, the claims tribunal has recorded a finding that since the claimants have already received Rs. 15,000/- from the Court and Rs. 20,000/- from the Government, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- from the amount of award i.e. Rs. 75,000/- and has stated that the claimants will be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation, which shall be distributed between them in equal share.
While deciding the Issue No. 4 as to whether the claim petition is not maintainable as has been stated in paragraph 19 of the written statement of Owner of the Bus in question, the claims tribunal has decided this Issue in negative as the opposite party had failed to prove that the claimants No. 1, 3 and 4 are not entitled to get any compensation.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that u/s 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the liability is only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-, but the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- without considering the same. Perusal of the policy does not indicate that it was a limited liability as has been held by the tribunal. Subject to aforesaid observation, Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.