Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 544 (ALL)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lajjawati

2007-03-08

R.P.MISRA, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2007
P. P. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. N. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award dated 8-12-2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Budaun passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition no. 8 of 2004. Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that in the absence of any documentary evidence in respect to the income of the deceased the maximum salary ought to have been taken as Rs. 3,200/- per month but the learned Tribunal has erred in law by computing his salary as Rs. 4,700/-per month placing reliance on the Apex Court judgment in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni and others v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. , Baroda ( 3 ) HE further contended that the accident was on account of the negligence of driver and thus the Insurance Company would not have been responsible for payment of compensation under Section 163-A of the act and placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Honble Karnataka High Court in appaji (Since Deceased) and another v. M. Krishna and another. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant we do not find any force in any of the aforesaid submissions and in our view the impugned award passed by the Claims tribunal warrants no interference as there is no legal or factual illegality. ( 5 ) IN respecttotheincomeof thedeceased the claimant Smt. Lajjawati made a statement in the claim application that the deceased was receiving Rs. 3,200/- per month towards salary and Rs. 50/- as daily allowance. In the oral statement the wife of the deceased stated that the deceased was receiving salary of about 3,000/- to 4,000/- per month. The owner of the vehicle i. e. , JCB Machine in his statement clearly said that he was paying rs. 3,200/- per month towards salary and rs. 50/- as daily allowance. In view of the aforesaid evidence the learned Tribunal has accepted the salary of the deceased as rs. 4,700/- per month i. e. , Rs. 3,200/- per month being salary and Rs. 1,500/- as daily allowance, which comes to Rs. 4,700/ -. There is no evidence to contradict the same. 50/- as daily allowance. In view of the aforesaid evidence the learned Tribunal has accepted the salary of the deceased as rs. 4,700/- per month i. e. , Rs. 3,200/- per month being salary and Rs. 1,500/- as daily allowance, which comes to Rs. 4,700/ -. There is no evidence to contradict the same. We have also carefully considered the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni (supra) and do not find that the Apex Court has held as a legal proposition that in the absence of documentary evidence the salary of the deceased could not have been treated to be more than Rs. 3,200/- per month and, therefore, the aforesaid judgment has no application to the proposition sought to be argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant. ( 6 ) COMING to the second question we find that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the deceased on account whereof the accident took place. In view of this finding, the judgment of Honble karnataka High Court relied by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of appaji (Since Deceased) (supra) has no application. Moreover, in the case of Deepal girish Bahi Soni (supra),. the Apex Court in para 39 of the judgment observed that section 163-A has been introduced in the Act by way of social security scheme and while interpreting Section 163a of the Act, it further held in para 42 of the judgment as under: ". . . . An award made there under, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in column nos. The note appended to column which deals with fatal accidents makes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in column nos. 2 to 6 thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a Section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out of use of a motor vehicle. " (Emphasis added) ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court, we do not find any error in the award of the Tribunal and, therefore, in our view the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. ( 8 ) THE statutory deposit made before this court be remitted to the Claims Tribunal within a period of three weeks. . .