Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 64 (UTT)

Tej Kumari v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2004-05-20

P.C.VERMA, R.TANDON

body2004
JUDGMENT P.C. Verma, A.C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 25.5.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant petitioner has filed a claim petition under Section 110 of Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of death of Sri Nanhey Lal in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioner has stated that on 28.10.1996 Sri Nanhey Lal was going to his home from Khatima Bazar riding on bicycle. Near the gate of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Truck No. URB 4702 hit Sri Nanhey Lal and crushed him under the rear wheel of the truck. It has been stated that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. Sri Nanhey Lal was rushed to the Community Hospital, Khatima from where he was brought to District Hospital, Pilibhit but he succumbed to the injuries sustained. The deceased was 30 years old and he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month by working as a labourer. 3. Opposite party No. 2 Insurance Company has admitted that the truck in question was insured with it. It has been alleged by the Insurance Company that the driver of the truck had no valid driving licence and the owner of the truck flouted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: (1) Whether on 26.10.1995 at 12.30 p.m. near Mandi Gate, Pilibhit Road, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, the driver of truck No. UPV 4702 due to rash and negligent driving caused accident by hitting the bicycle of deceased Nanhey Lai who later on succumbed to the injuries sustained? (2) Whether the driver of truck No. URV 4702 had no valid driving licence at the time of accident? If so its effect? (3) Whether the petitioner No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Nanhey Lai? (4) To what amount of compensation and from which respondents the petitioners are entitled to? 5. In reply to the issue Nos. 1 and 2 the learned Tribunal has concluded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and the driver of the truck had valid driving licence. (4) To what amount of compensation and from which respondents the petitioners are entitled to? 5. In reply to the issue Nos. 1 and 2 the learned Tribunal has concluded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and the driver of the truck had valid driving licence. In reply of issue No. 3 the learned Tribunal has held that Smt. Tej Kumari is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. The learned Tribunal assessed compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 87,500/- to the claimants vide impugned order. Feeling aggrieved against which the present appeal has been filed by the claimant. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the evidence on record. 7. The learned Tribunal has concluded that the truck in question was being driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident and hit the deceased who was going on his bicycle. Further it has been held that the driver of the truck had valid driving licence and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and further that claimant Smt. Tej Kumari is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and she is entitled to get compensation. The findings of the Claims Tribunal on all these counts have not been challenged in the appeal. The appellants only disputed the amount of award as it is not sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 8. It has come in the evidence that at the time of death the deceased was aged about 30 years. Claimant Smt. Tej Kumari P.W. 2 who is the widow of the deceased has deposed on oath that the deceased was doing cutting of Sariya and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. Out of which one-third i.e., Rs. 500/- may be deducted for his own expenses, if he would have been alive. Then the net pecuniary loss comes to the petitioner is Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Considering the age of deceased a multiplier 15 should be applied and thus the sum of compensation comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. The petitioner is also entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is awarded a sum Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Considering the age of deceased a multiplier 15 should be applied and thus the sum of compensation comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. The petitioner is also entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is awarded a sum Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rs. one lakh ninety thousand only) as compensation along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum. 10. The parties shall bear their own costs.