Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 73 (UTT)

Suresh Kumar Sood v. Smt. Munni Begum

2006-03-03

M.M.GHILDIYAL, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2006
JUDGEMENT RAJEEV GUPTA Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lokendra DObhal, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 8. None for respondent NO.9. Mr. R.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for. respondent No. 10 New India Insurance Company Ltd. They are heard. 2. This Is owner's appeal against the Impugned award dated 22-02-1985 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge), Nalriltal in Motor Accident Claim No. 53 of 1981. 3. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 3,26,400/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand and Four Hundred only) for the death of one Munne Khan in the motor accident on 18-12-1980 when the Truck bearing registration No. UPM 9532, in which he was travelling, overturned due to the rash and negligent driver of its driving resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot, itself. The claimants further pleaded that Munne Khan used to earn Rs. 800/- per month by selling milk. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle Truck (appellant) contested the claim and pleaded that deceased Munne Khan was not an occupant of the Truck and as the Truck was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd., the owner was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. The insurer of the Truck i.e. New India Insurance Company Ltd. too contested the claim and pleaded that though the Truck was insured with this Insurance Company, but it was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants, as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger In a 'goods' vehicle. It was further pleaded that the driver of the Truck was not 'holding a valid license at the time of the accident. 6. The claimants examined PW1 Munni Begum (widow of deceased Munne Khan) and PW2 Mahendra Singh (who too was travelling in the said Truck with deceased Munne Khan) in support of their case, whereas the owner of the offending vehicle Truck examined DW1 Narayan Mathur in support of his plea. The, Insurance Company, however, did not examine any witness. 7. 6. The claimants examined PW1 Munni Begum (widow of deceased Munne Khan) and PW2 Mahendra Singh (who too was travelling in the said Truck with deceased Munne Khan) in support of their case, whereas the owner of the offending vehicle Truck examined DW1 Narayan Mathur in support of his plea. The, Insurance Company, however, did not examine any witness. 7. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that deceased Munne Khan was traveling in the Truck as a gratuitous passenger; he died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck; and as deceased Munne Khan was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods' vehicle, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Considering the age of deceased Munne Khan and the evidence led by the claimants about his Income, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 74,200/(Rupees Seventy Four Thousand and Two Hundred only) to the claimants and while exonerating the Insurance Company, the owner of the Truck i.e. the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lokendra Oobhal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in discarding the evidence of the appellant's witness DW1 Narayan Mathur' in holding that deceased Munne Khan was travelling in the Truck; and in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 9. Mr. R.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the New India Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal in exonerating the Insurance Company is in line with the Apex Court dictum in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani reported in 2003 ACJ 1 and the subsequent judgments on the subject. 10. Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 (claimants) too vehementiy argued that the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated by the Tribunal. 11. Asha Rani reported in 2003 ACJ 1 and the subsequent judgments on the subject. 10. Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 (claimants) too vehementiy argued that the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated by the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of PW2 Mahendra Singh in holding that deceased Munne Khan was travelling in the appellant's Truck and died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident when the Truck overturned due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck. 12. True, appellant's witness DW1 Narayan Mathur too claims to be in the same Truck. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of DW1 Narayan Mathur, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly discarded his evidence. In fact, the appellant ought to have examined the driver of the Truck who was the best person to narrate as to how the accident occurred. For the reasons best known to the appellant, the driver was not examined before the Tribunal. The evidence of PW2 Mahendra Singh who was travelling in the same Truck with deceased Munne Khan does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Though he was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination by the owner of the Truck, nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination which may render his evidence unworthy of evidence. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for relying upon the evidence of PW2 Mahendra Singh in preference to the evidence of DW1 Narayan Mathur. On a thorough examination of the evidence of PW2 Mahendra Singh and DW1 Narayan Mathur, we do not find any reason for taking a different view about their evidence than the one taken by the Tribunal. 13. The appellant's next submission that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants, need not detain us any more, as the said issue stands finally decided by the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani reported In 2003 ACJ 1 wherein the earlier view taken in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh reported in 2000 ACJ 1 was overruled. The view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Asha Rani has been consistently followed In the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani reported In 2003 ACJ 1 wherein the earlier view taken in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Singh reported in 2000 ACJ 1 was overruled. The view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Asha Rani has been consistently followed In the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar reported In 2003 ACJ 1931; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Vs, Devlreddy Kanda Reddy reported In 2003 ACJ 468: National Insurance Comoany Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur reported in 2004 AD 428; Pramod Kumar Agarwal Vs. Mushtari Begum reported in 2004 AD 1903; and in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others reported in 2005 AD 721. 14. In the present case, there is no dispute that the vehicle in question was a goods' vehicle. It has been held by the Tribunal that deceased Munne Khan was a gratuitous passenger in the Truck. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation and holding the owner of the Truck alone liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 15. The It larned counsel for the appellant then challenged the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. The finding about the income of the deceased is based on the evidence of PW1 Munni Begum and PW2 Mahendra Singh. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. The Tribunal, therefore, has not committed any illegality in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 800/- per month. The Tribunal, in fact, has been somewhat miser in awarding compensation of Rs. 74,200/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand and Two Hundred only) only. The deduction of 30% made by the Tribunal on account of the accelerated payment to the claimants, was quite unnecessary. Since the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross objection, we leave this issue here only. 16. 74,200/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand and Two Hundred only) only. The deduction of 30% made by the Tribunal on account of the accelerated payment to the claimants, was quite unnecessary. Since the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross objection, we leave this issue here only. 16. Thus, on a re-examination of the entire matter, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly held that deceased Munne Khan was travelling in the appellant's Truck; that he died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident; that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant's driver; that deceased Munne Khan was a gratuitous passenger in the goods' vehicle and as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the owner of the Truck, alone, was liable in that behalf. 17. As we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant against the Impugned award fails and is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.