Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 10 (MP)

Lalta Bai v. Sanjay Kharvani

2003-01-02

BHAWANI SINGH, S.L.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT Singh C.J. -- This appeal is directed against the award dated September 28, 1994, passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandla, in M.V.C. No.3 of 1992. The accident took place on 15.12.1998 in which Virandas (25) died. Allegation is that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, resulting in accident and death of the deceased. Compensation of Rs. 90, 000/- has been awarded. Through this appeal, enhancement is sought apart from liability to pay compensation by the Insurance Company, which has been exonerated by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that it was not proved that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The claimant has filed insurance policy in this Court. There is no dispute with regard to factum of the vehicle being insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. Even in absence of insurance policy, the Claims Tribunal should have held the Insurance Company responsible, since it failed to file written statement in the case and deny the statement of the claimant that the vehicle was insured with it. However, by production of the insurance policy, it is proved that the offending vehicle is covered by the insurance policy. The next question is the determination of compensation in this case, since the appellant/claimant alleges that just compensation has not been awarded. It is a case prior to coming into force the MV Act of 1988, therefore, determination of compensation will depend upon the principles followed by the Court before it. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was earning Rs. 25/- per day, therefore, Rs. 750/- per month. There is no dispute with regard to this aspect of the matter. However, dispute lies in the application of multiplier. Smt. A. Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company-respondent 3, submits that the multiplier 12 has rightly been applied in this case while the learned counsel for the appellant submits that multiplier 18 should be applied. Since the MV Act, 1988 was not applicable, therefore, multiplier of Second Schedule to the Act will not apply. Under the old principles, use of multiplier depended upon many factors, such as age of the deceased, age of the claimant, longevity in the family, medical facility, living conditions etc., and multiplier upto 20 was also applicable. However, in the present case, it would be desirable to apply .multiplier of 18. Accordingly, compensation is assessed. Under the old principles, use of multiplier depended upon many factors, such as age of the deceased, age of the claimant, longevity in the family, medical facility, living conditions etc., and multiplier upto 20 was also applicable. However, in the present case, it would be desirable to apply .multiplier of 18. Accordingly, compensation is assessed. After deducting Rs. 125/- towards personal expenditure, the compensation works out to (Rs. 625 x 12 x 18) Rs. 1,35,000/-, in addition to Rs. 7,000/- for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000/- for loss to estate and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and other religious rites, taking total compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- (Rs. One Lac Fifty Two Thousand only). The appeal is allowed. The award is modified and the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- payable by the Oriental Insurance Company within three month. The enhanced amount to carry interast at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till payment. Costs on parties. Smt. A. Ruprah submits that the interest from the date of application till filing of the insurance policy by the owner in this Court should be paid by the owner of the vehicle, who failed to file the same before the Claims Tribunal. Smt. Ruprah refers to Rule 420 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and submits that the claim application is to be accompanied with other documents. The claim petition was not accompanied by the insurance policy nor it was filed by the owner of the vehicle, therefore, insurance company should not be held liable to pay interest for the stated period. We do not accept this contention. The Rules are regulatory and do not provide for penalty of dismissal of the claim petition for non-compliance thereof. Moreover, it may not be possible for the claimant to file the insurance policy because she does not possess it nor it is within her power to procure it. Should it mean that the claim cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed and the claimant rendered without any remedy and relief and rort fessor to go free? This cannot be the intention of the law nor can such a conclusion be drawn. The claimant asserted that the vehicle was insured. The Insurance Company should have come forward to deny it, in case the vehicle was not insured with it. This cannot be the intention of the law nor can such a conclusion be drawn. The claimant asserted that the vehicle was insured. The Insurance Company should have come forward to deny it, in case the vehicle was not insured with it. It has not been filed it with the written statement in the case. Therefore, we have said that the Claims Tribunal should have come to the conclusion that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. Owner of the vehicle has also not filed it, who possesses one copy of the policy. However, it is for the Insurance Company, which is party to the case right from the beginning, to file the insurance policy or called upon the owner directly or through the Court to file it in the Court, but it failed to do so. Unfortunately, it is only when the insurance company is exonerated from the liability and the liability is fixed on the owner, he rashes to the Court pleads for filing of insurance policy in the Court, which has not allowed. For all above reasons, we do not accept the contention and hold the insurance company liable to pay the interest also.