Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 246 (JK)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijay Kachroo

2007-11-08

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2007
1. Appellant has challenged the award dated 14th of January, 2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in Claim Petition No. 508 (Claims) titled Vijay Kachroo & ors vs. Oriental Insurance Company and ors whereby and where under claim petition of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 came to be allowed, for short `impugned award. It is necessary to notice brief facts of the case herein as under. 2. Deceased Sh. Roshan Lal Raina was coming from Srinagar to Jammu in his departmental vehicle bearing registration No. JK02A-5786 which was hit by a Tipper bearing registration No. JK-14/2955 at Nandani and the deceased died on spot. The accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver-respondent No. 5. FIR came to be lodged and the police swung into action. 3. Claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition, claiming-compensation of Rs.34, 65, 824/- on the grounds taken in the claim petition. 4. Appellant-insurer resisted the petition by the medium of objections. Owner-insured has simply filed objections. Following, issues came to be framed:- 1. "Whether an accident took place on 24.10.2000 at Kala Jad Nandani due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing regn. No. JK- 14/2955 by its driver respondent no. 3 in which deceased Roshan Lal has died? -OPP 2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? -- OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it without a valid driving licence and the vehicle did not have fitness certificate and driven in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy? OPR 4. Relief. O. P. Parties." 5. Claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 examined three witnesses in support of their case. Respondents have not examined any witness. The insurer-Appellant has resisted the petition on the ground that the driver was not having valid-effective driving licence but despite of that insurer-appellant has not examined any witness in support of its objections. 6. All the witnesses examined by the claimants have deposed that the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of accident and was the only bread earner in their family. The claimants have lost the source of dependency. The evidence of the petitioners-claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 3 remained un-rebutted. The claimants-petitioners-respondent Nos. 6. All the witnesses examined by the claimants have deposed that the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of accident and was the only bread earner in their family. The claimants have lost the source of dependency. The evidence of the petitioners-claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 3 remained un-rebutted. The claimants-petitioners-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have proved by leading cogent evidence that driver of the offending vehicle has driven the offending vehicle Tipper rash and negligently and hit the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling, at Nandani on 24th of October, 2000. The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on spot. The claimants-petitioners-respondent nos. 1 to 3, have also proved that the age of the deceased was 54 years at the time of accident. 7. The appellant-respondent-insurer has failed to lead any evidence in support of its objections. Thus the appellant-respondent has failed to prove issue no. 3, virtually failed to discharge the onus. 8. No doubt, Tribunal granted permission to the insurer to contest the claim petition on all the grounds available to the owner of the offending vehicle vide order dated 11"1 of September, 2003 but despite of that the insurer has not examined any witness in support of its objections or in order to rebut the evidence of the claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 3. 9. The Tribunal has applied multiplier method for assessing the compensation. I am of the considered view that in the given circumstances, multiplier 11 came to be rightly applied while keeping in view the Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. Gross salary of the deceased was Rs.16, 788/- and after making some deductions, the Tribunal rightly held that the loss of dependency was not less than Rs.10, 800/- and accordingly assessed the compensation. However, the Tribunal has fallen in error while awarding compensation under the head -- loss of Consortium, loss of Estate and Funeral expenses. Rs.5000/- under the head of loss of Consortium, Rs.2500/- under the head loss of Estate and Rs.2000/-under the head Funeral expenses was to be awarded. 11. Having glance of the above discussion, the award merits to be modified as indicated above. Rs.5000/- under the head of loss of Consortium, Rs.2500/- under the head loss of Estate and Rs.2000/-under the head Funeral expenses was to be awarded. 11. Having glance of the above discussion, the award merits to be modified as indicated above. Accordingly, it is hereby held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.14, 25, 600/- as awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants are also entitled to Rs.2000/- under the head loss Funeral Expenses, Rs.5000/- under the head loss of consortium and Rs.2500/- under the head loss of Estate. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the award is modified. Send down the records of the trial court along with copy of this judgment/Award.