Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 351 (HP)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. GULSHAN BEGUM

2001-11-23

C.K.THAKKER

body2001
JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J. (Oral) :- Admitted. Ms. Priyanka Verma. Advocate appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents No.l to 4 and Mr. V.S. Chauhan. Advocate appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner Insurance Company against an order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Shimla on September 4. 2001 in case No.41-8/2 of 1999 titled Gulshan Begum v. Surat Ram & Ors. 3. The case of the Insurance Company is that a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act") was filed by present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 alleging that due to accident which took place on February 9. 1999 with Truck No.HP-09-1612 owned by respondent No.5. the husband of the respondent No.l. father of respondents No.2 -and 3 and son of respondent No.4 died. A petition was. therefore, filed for compensation of Rs. one crore along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident. It was averred in the petition that the deceased Mohd.Yasin was 33 years of age at the time of accident and was a Government Contractor/Agriculturist/Horticulturist during his life time and was having monthly income .of Rs.50.000/-. Moreover, the income of the deceased would have increased further on account of his business/profession as Contractor as also from agriculture and horticulture fields. 4. The Insurance Company objected the liability on several grounds, including the maintainability of the petition. It was contended that at the time of accident, the driver, who was driving the vehicle, was not having a valid driving license and hence Insurance Company was not liable. 5. On April 24. 2001. the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed the following order: "One P.W. examined. Petitioners evidence has been closed. For evidence of the respondents to come up on 4.9.2001. Let offer by way of conciliation be also made by the insurer, competent officer of the insurer be produced on the date fixed." 6. On September 4. 2001. 5. On April 24. 2001. the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed the following order: "One P.W. examined. Petitioners evidence has been closed. For evidence of the respondents to come up on 4.9.2001. Let offer by way of conciliation be also made by the insurer, competent officer of the insurer be produced on the date fixed." 6. On September 4. 2001. the Divisional Manager of the petitioner Insurance Company presented himself in person along with Advocate before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and offered to pay an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs as compensation, but it was turned down by the learned counsel for claimant-respondent No. 1 to 4. The Tribunal passed an order on that day. which has been made the subject matter of the present petition. In the said order, the Tribunal observed that the Income Tax Return of deceased Mohd. Yasin was filed for the year 1988-89 (Ex.P-5) and the taxable income of the deceased was shown as Rs.2.30.500/- though, as observed by the Tribunal, there was "remissness" on the part of the petitioners in leading evidence regarding exact age of the deceased. The Tribunal proceeded to observe that when the accident occurred in February 4. 1999 the deceased was 34 years of age. According to the Tribunal, in these circumstances the datum figure which worked out to be was more than Rs. 1.84.400/- (Rs.2.30.500 x 8/10). It was also stated by the Tribunal that multiplier of 15 would be reasonable considering :he age of the deceased and hence the amount would work out to Rs.27.66.000/-. An amount of Rs. 10.000/- would have to be added as conventional amount for future loss, observed the Tribunal. The Tribunal opined that the learned counsel for the claimants "very fairly stated" that the claimants would feel satisfied if an amount of Rs.22.00 lacs would be paid as lump sum compensation. The learned counsel for the insurer prayed for some time to get approval from the competent authority and hence the matter was ordered to be re-listed on October 4. 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner Insurance Company has approached this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner Insurance Company has approached this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. It was stated that the Insurance Company has made its offer of Rs.6.00 lacs and went it was not acceptable to the learned counsel for the claimants, it was open to the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law and nothing more was necessary. It was also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence and passed an award in accordance with law. 9. In my view, the complaint made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is well-founded and must be upheld. Once the I officer of the Insurance Company had remained personally present and made an offer of Rs.6.00 lacs and it was not acceptable to claimants, it was open to the Tribunal to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and to decide it on merits without making wider observations. I Prima facie, it also appears that the Tribunal will have to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, such as the amount which would have been spent by the deceased for him as also for the family members. Again, the Tribunal has to apply its mind regarding multiplier considering the age of deceased. The last but not the least is that when the claimants would get specific amount in lump sum at one time, such amount could be utilised/invested/appropriated is also an important factor. 10. In these circumstances, the grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that no opinion ought to have been expressed by the Tribunal that the amount of compensation would come to Rs.27.66.000/- of Rs. 10.000/- by way of conventional amount and that the offer made by the claimants was reasonable has substance., To me. it is clear that the Tribunal will have to come to its own conclusion on the basis of evidence on record by coming to a specific finding. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and it accordingly allowed. The order dated September 4. 2001. passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Shimla is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and it accordingly allowed. The order dated September 4. 2001. passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Shimla is hereby quashed and set aside. The Tribunal will now take up the matter for hearing and will decide it in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the order impugned in the present petition as also without being inhibited by the observations made hereinabove as those have been made only for the purpose of deciding the present petition. 12. In the light of the averments made in the petition as also in the light of the observations made in the impugned order, in my opinion, interest of justice would be met if a Tribunal other than the one which has passed the impugned order will decide the matter in accordance with law. CMP No. 137 of 2001 13. Interim order granted on October 1. 2001 and confirmed on November 2. 2001 is hereby vacated. The application stands disposed off.