Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 204 (JHR)

Snehlata v. Raj Kishor Singh

2002-02-18

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2002
ORDER 1. Claimants are appellants, Ramesh Chandra Singh of Yarpur, Patna was injured in a motor accident on 26.9.1984. He was travelling on a bus (BRA-9909) from Patna to Ranchi in connection with his electronics goods business, which met with an accident near Charhi, district Hazaribagh, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries in waste portion, right hand portion and chest. 2. There were fractured, and his entire body was plasters in course of his treatment which continued for more than 2-1/2 years and ultimately on 6.4.1987 he breathed his last. 3. At the time of accident the deceased was aged about 35 years. He was a qualified technical skilled, and was running a television repairing and manufacturing centre in the name and style of Disco Electronics, Yarpur, Patna. 4. His wife, son and daughters filed Claim Case No. 43 of 1987 for compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 5. The deceased was a technical expert and qualified unemployed person and had taken loan of Rs. two lacs from the Bihar State Financial Corporation. 6. In all a sum of Rs. 5,87,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. It included annual income of Rs. 12,000/- per annum at least for 30 years which comes to Rs. 3,60,000/-, cost of medical treatment at Rs. 6,000/-, loss of affection of wife and children at Rs. 10,000/-, cost of shardh at Rs. 5,000/- goods damaged due to accident at Rs. 6000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- to repay Bihar State Financial Corporation. 7. At the relevant time the ill fated bus was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited. Both owner as well as insurer of the bus appeared, filed written statement and contested the claim case. 8. Due to death of Ramesh Chandra Singh his family sustained irreparable loss. The claimants successfully proved that accident took place for the fault of driver of the bus. Insurance policy was not brought on record either in original or in duplicate. 9. The tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till payment. 10. The claimants had already received Rs. 15,000/- with interest on 18.3.1998. Therefore, the insurance company was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 36,000/- with interest. 11. 9. The tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till payment. 10. The claimants had already received Rs. 15,000/- with interest on 18.3.1998. Therefore, the insurance company was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 36,000/- with interest. 11. It was established that deceased Ramesh Chandra Singh died in the aforesaid bus accident and claimants were entitled for compensation. From the insurance certificate brought on record, it was also proved that the said bus was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited at the relevant time. Unfortunately claimants failed to produce detailed evidence of income of the deceased. Snehlata Devi, wife of the deceased in her evidence as OW 1 stated that her husband had obtained training of electrical mechanic in Delhi for three years and was doing repairing works of Television and other electrical goods and was running a shop, namely Disco Electronics. He was also suppliers electrical goods. According to her, her husband was saving Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- per month from the said shop. 12. OW 3, who was uncle of the deceased stated that deceased Ramesh Chandra Singh was earning Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. 13. We find that inspite of the aforesaid evidence tribunal failed to record any finding regarding income of the deceased. In absence of any documentary evidence regarding income of deceased Ramesh Chandra Singh, we are of the view that he being a trained electrician and owner a shop was atleast providing Rs. 1,000/- per month to his family. We, therefore, calculate loss of annual dependency of the claimants at Rs. 12,000/- and considering age of the deceased, apply ten multiplier thereto. In this manner total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-. 14. We find that Tribunal committed an error in directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In absence of the insurance policy, which was not produced by the Insurance Company, this advantage was not available to them. We, therefore, set aside part of the impugned judgment whereby Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-only and hold that the entire liability of the owner of the vehicle is to be indemnified by insurer. Claimants-appellants are, therefore, entitled to get a sum of Rs. We, therefore, set aside part of the impugned judgment whereby Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-only and hold that the entire liability of the owner of the vehicle is to be indemnified by insurer. Claimants-appellants are, therefore, entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till payment. It is made clear that the amount already received by the claimants on account of interim award has to be deducted. 15. This appeal is disposed of with above observations and directions.