United India Insurance Company Limited vs Soni Devi & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This appeal from order arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun dated 06.05.2017 passed in MACP No. 25 of 2016, whereby a compensation of Rs. 29,59,832/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Two only) has been awarded to the claimants.

Brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2015 at about 06-06:15 A.M., Sompal @ Neetupal (deceased) was returning to his home on his motorcycle, after dropping his wife at her place of work. When he reached Inder Khatri Petrol Pump at Haridwar-Dehradun main road, a Vikram No. UK 07-TC 1943, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and was on its wrong side, hit the motorcycle of Sompal @ Neetupal. As a result of this accident, Sompal @ Neetupal sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Himalayan Hospital, Jollygrant, where he passed away due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was doing the work of Raj Mistri apart from property dealing, from which he used to earn an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month. On account of death of Sompal @ Neetupal in a motor accident, a compensation of Rs. 20,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) was claimed by the claimants.

Written statements were filed by the owner and the driver of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company, with which the Vikram involved in the accident, was insured.

On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether on 03.11.2015 at about 06-06:15 A.M., near Inder Khatri Petrol Pump, at Haridwar-Dehradun main road, when Som Singh Pal @ Neetupal was driving his motorcycle no. UA 07S-6404 from the side of Lal Tappad to Majri, a Vikram bearing registration No. UK 07 TC 1943, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, and was on the wrong side hit the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which Som Singh Pal @ Neetupal passed away due to injuries sustained by him?

Whether on the date of accident all the papers of Vikram No. UK 07 TC 1943 such as R.C., Insurance and driving licence were valid?

Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation in the present claim petition? If yes then which of the parties is liable to pay the compensation?

So far as issue no. 1 is concerned, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Vikram No. UK 07 TC-1943, and as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident, Sompal @ Neetupal passed away. This finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the evidence available before the Tribunal in the form of P.W. 2 Suraj Pal who is an eyewitness of the incident. This witness PW 2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he was returning from the house of Vishambhar, resident of Majri Grant, Doiwala, Dehradun, he saw that the driver of Vikram No. UK 07 TC-1943, which was being driven rashly and negligently, in order to overtake the motorcycle of the deceased hit the motorcycle and caused the accident. In the cross-examination made by this witness nothing worthwhile has come out which could show that the statement of this witness was not correct.

So far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that all the papers such as R.C., Insurance, Licence, Permit, etc., relating to the vehicle involved in the accident were valid.

As regarding the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the income tax returns of the deceased determined the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 1,93,834/- (Rs. One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Four only). Out of this amount, considering the number of dependents, the learned Tribunal deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses and calculated the annual dependency income as Rs. 1,45,376/-(Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six only). Thereafter considering the age of the deceased as 40 years, the learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and calculated the dependency income as Rs. 21,80,640/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Eighty Thousand Six Hundred Forty only). Since the age of the deceased was between forty to fifty years, the learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 6,54,192/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Two only) towards future prospects.

Apart from the above, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards funeral expenses. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 29,59,832/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Two only) was awarded by the Tribunal, along with an interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the date of award.

Aggrieved, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.

This Court is of a considered view, that the learned Tribunal has considered each and every aspect of the case and has rightly awarded the compensation, which calls for no interference. Consequently, no interference is called for by this Court. The appeal from order is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Let the entire amount along with the interest as directed by the Tribunal be deposited by the insurance company with the concerned Tribunal after adjusting the amount already deposited. After the entire amount is deposited by the insurance company, let the same be released in favour of the claimants within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) be also remitted to the concerned Tribunal.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be sent to the concerned Tribunal for onward compliance.