United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Nirksha Devi & Others

This judgment shall govern the disposal of both Misc. Appeals No.1133/2007 and 1221/2007, as both the appeals have arisen out of the Award dated 16.8.2007 passed by Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jora, District Morena in Claim Case No. 11/2007.

Misc. Appeal No.1133/2007 has been filed by Insurance Company assailing the impugned award on the ground that no accident occurred from the insured vehicle. The offence was registered after 25 days of the accident falsely implicating the insured vehicle just to get the compensation. The driver was not having licence. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

Misc. Appeal No. 1221/2007 has been filed by the claimants assailing the award impugned on the point of inadequacy of the compensation.

It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail as to the manner the accident has occurred, to burden the judgment on the said issues. It is only the liability on the part of the insurance company to pay the compensation and inadequacy of the compensation is being considered and decided in succeeding paragraphs.

Misc. Appeal No.1133/2007 :

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having licence and the first information report was lodged after 25 days of the accident. He further submitted that award of penal interest @ 8% is not proper.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants has submitted that if driver did not possess a valid and requisite license at the time of accident, the insurance company cannot be exonerated, however the insurance company may recover the amount from the owner. In support of this version, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants placed reliance on the judgments in Pappu vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba (Civil Appeal No. 20962/2017, decided on 19.1.2018), and, The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company vs. Shammanna [2018 ACJ 2163].

The Claims Tribunal has specifically analyzed the aforesaid facts and given a finding that the insurance company has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently or he was not having valid driving licence, therefore, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle (tractor) while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, due to which he succumbed to the injuries, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. No interference by this Court, so far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, is called for and the appeal (MA No. 1133/2007) filed by the insurance company to the extent of its liability is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Misc. Appeal No.1221/2007:

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side, whereas it is evident that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month by serving as a binder in Trimurti Industries Agra. It has been further submitted that the amount on other conventional heads is also inadequate which should be enhanced. It is also submitted that at the time of death of the deceased he was 28 years of age and as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], no amount under the head of future prospect has been awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, he prayed that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal should be enhanced as per the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of deceased and supported the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

The Claims Tribunal framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings and after recording of the evident held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the offending Tractor bearing registration No. CPG/7304. The accident had taken place in the year 2005 and the deceased was earning his income by doing the work of binding in a company, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as 4500/- per annum. However, since the deceased was 28 years of the age at the time of accident, therefore, the appellants are entitled to get future prospect as observed in Pranay Sethi (supra).

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellants are entitled to the compensation as under:-

Heads

Compensation Awarded

Income

Rs.4500/- per month

Future Prospects

Rs.1800/- per month (i.e., 40% of the income)

Deduction towards personal expenditure

Rs.1575/- per month (i.e., 1/4th of the income (4500+1800)

Total Income after deducting personal expenses

Rs. 4725/- per month (6300- 1575)

Multiplier

17

Loss of future income

Rs. 9,63,900/- (Rs.4725 x 12 x17)

Loss of Consortium

Rs. 40,000/-

Loss of Estate, love and affection and pain & suffering, etc.

Rs. 15,000/-

Funeral Expenses

Rs. 15,000/-

Total Compensation Payable

Rs. 10,33,900/-

The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-. The appellants/claimants have prayed for award of compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- in addition to the sum already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal is allowed to the extent of relief prayed for by the appellants and the appellants are held entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs.2,94,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, making the total compensation of Rs.9,14,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the realisation. The said amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the order passed by this Court.

In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.