Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 796 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jainab Bebi

2001-05-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26th June, 1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, (hereinafter for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. case No.47/91 whereby an award of Rs. 2,98,000/- as compensation was passed in favour of the respondent claimants (hereinafter for short "the claimants") against the respondents No.3, 4 and the appellant jointly and severely. 2. Aggrieved by the award impugned National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter for short "the insurer") filed the present appeal. 3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are thus : A claim petition was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short "the Act") claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 9,30,646/-. It was averred that on 1-4-91 about 1.30 P.M. Shri Gulam Farid was proceeding on a Luna moped from Ridmalsar to Bikaner, when he reached near to the gate of Shophiya School at that relevant time truck No.RRF 3381 came from behind and hit the Luna and its rider. Due to this accident the Luna and its rider Gulam Farid came underneath of left wheel of the said truck and was dragged about 5-6 paces. Due to this accident Gulam Farid sustained the severe injuries and succumbed to injuries instantaneously It was averred that the said truck was driven by its driver respondent No.3 rashly and negligently. The said Truck was owned by the respondent No.4 and was validly insured with the appellant insurer. 4. Deceased Gulam Farid aged 55 years was an employee of Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute, Bikaner. He was Field Technician. 5. Appellant (Original non-applicant No.3) filed its written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues and tried the case and awarded compensation to claimants by award impugned. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and scrutinised & evaluated the evidence on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal fell in error in holding the driver of the offending truck negligent for the accident. It was further contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the said accident and in the alternative, it was the deceased who contributed to the accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal fell in error in holding the driver of the offending truck negligent for the accident. It was further contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the said accident and in the alternative, it was the deceased who contributed to the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant also assailed the quantum of compensation on the ground that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. 8. On the point of maintainability of the appeal on the ground of negligence and quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurer was granted permission by the Tribunal to contest on all grounds vide order dated 21st May, 1992. 9. Issue Nos.1 and 4 relate to the negligent act either of the driver of the offending Truck or the deceased himself and as such both the issues are inter-linked and, therefore, the Tribunal recorded a common finding on these issues. The Tribunal reached to conclusion that the said accident was result of driving of the said Truck rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No.3.A First Information Report (F.I.R.) Ex.1 was lodged by P.W. 2 Manjoor Hussain, an eye witness of the occurrence promptly narrating brief facts of the occurrence. On this police registered the crime report No.115/91. After usual investigation by the police, charge sheet Ex.8 was filed against the respondent No.3 for the offence under sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. 10. P.W.2 Manjoor Hussain the author of F.I.R. Ex.1 and eye witness of occurrence stated on oath before the Tribunal that while Gulam Farid was proceeding on Luna moped towards Bikaner he was also going on motor cycle in the same direction, suddenly a truck bearing No.RRF 3381 came from behind and over took him, thereafter it lost the control and hit the Luna moped and its rider Gulam Farid from behind. Gulam Farid was hit by left front wheel of the truck. The Truck was driven rashly and negligently by its driver at the speed of 60-65 K.M. per hour. Gulam Farid was dragged along the said truck for a distance of 10-15 ft, and succumbed to injuries instantaneously. Despite lengthy cross examination the testimony of this witness remained unshaken. Gulam Farid was hit by left front wheel of the truck. The Truck was driven rashly and negligently by its driver at the speed of 60-65 K.M. per hour. Gulam Farid was dragged along the said truck for a distance of 10-15 ft, and succumbed to injuries instantaneously. Despite lengthy cross examination the testimony of this witness remained unshaken. Respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal as such claimant's evidence remained unrebutted. The statement of this witness further finds support from the F.I.R. Ex.1, Site Inspection Map Ex.2, Site Inspection note Ex.3 and charge sheet Ex.8. On proper appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that'the said accident was a result of driving of the truck rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No.3 and the deceased was neither negligent nor contributed to the accident. The finding of the learned Tribunal is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence on record. I find no reason to take contrary view as such the finding of issue Nos.1 and 4 is hereby affirmed and I hold that the said accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.3. 11. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on higher side as also the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too excessive. It has been established by the claimant's unrebutted evidence that at the relevant time of accident the deceased was less than 55 years of age, his date of birth was 13-8- 1936 as established by Ex.9. Monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,542/- was established by Ex.1, certificate issued by the employer Central Sheep & Wool Research Institute, Bikaner, dated 22nd April, 1991. It is settled position of law that while computing the compensation, future prospects of advancement of life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. Learned Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects and advancement of life and career. It is settled position of law that the income which deceased used to make at the time of the accident would not have frozen for all time to come and would have reasonably been enhanced. Learned Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects and advancement of life and career. It is settled position of law that the income which deceased used to make at the time of the accident would not have frozen for all time to come and would have reasonably been enhanced. In the instant case learned Tribunal has not taken into account the future prospects while determining the multiplicand but computed the compensation on the basis of last paid monthly salary of Rs. 3,542/- which deceased was lastly being paid by his employer and out of that ⅓rd of the income having been deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. The learned Tribunal determined the monthly dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 2,350/-. In my considered opinion the monthly income and the dependency determined by the Tribunal cannot be said to he on higher side. On the contrary, it is at lower side in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in G.M. Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ (SC) 1 . 12. So far as selection of multiplier is concerned, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10. In U.P. State Road Transport Corp. v. Trilok Chand 1996 ACJ (SC) 831 it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that multiplier cannot exceed 18 years purchase factor. This was the improvement over the earlier decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Susamma Thoma's case (1994 ACJ 1) (supra) that ordinarily it should not exceed to 16. In view of the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was amended by the Amendment Act No.54 of 1988 and most important change introduced by the amendment in so tar as it relates to determination of compensation, is by insertion of Sections 163-A and 163-B in Chapter- Xl. According to Second Schedule to section 163-A, the multiplier varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which victim belongs. In the instant case the victim was less than 55 years of age and according to the Second Schedule, the multiplier provided is of 11 years purchase factor. In Jyoti Kaul v. State of M.P. AIR 2000 SCW 3789 the Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15 in the case of death of a person of 50 years of age. In Jyoti Kaul v. State of M.P. AIR 2000 SCW 3789 the Hon'ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 15 in the case of death of a person of 50 years of age. Thus viewed from any stand point, the compensation awarded by the tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive. 13. In view of this, I find no substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard. It is settled position of law that in an appeal interference is made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously in the instant case the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive and, therefore, in my considered opinion the award impugned calls for no interference in appeal. 14. No other point was pressed into service. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******