Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 132 (UTT)

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Manasvi Jain

2008-03-26

B.C.KANDPAL

body2008
JUDGMENT : B.C. Kandpal, J.—All these appeals arise out of same accident, therefore, I am deciding all these appeals by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I am describing the facts of Appeal No. 602 of 2006. 2. Appeal No. 602 of 2006 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T./Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 23 of 2005, Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 6,18,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment against the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation. 3. Appeal No. 603 of 2006 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T./Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 24 of 2005, Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,25,176 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment against the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation. 4. Appeal No. 484 of 2006 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T./Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 24 of 2005, Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,25,176 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment against the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.10.2004, Renu Jain along with her husband Suresh Chandra Jain (deceased) were coming from Noida to Dehradun by her Maruti Zen car bearing No. UP 07-F 4155. The said car was being driven by her husband Suresh Chandra Jain. When they reached near Uttam Sugar Mill situated at G.T. Road, Dehradun-Delhi Highway, 6 km from Manglore, D.T.C. bus bearing No. DL 1P-A 3111 which was being driven by its driver in very rash and negligent manner collided with the deceased's car. The collision was so forceful that Renu Jain and her husband Suresh Chandra Jain died at the spot. When they reached near Uttam Sugar Mill situated at G.T. Road, Dehradun-Delhi Highway, 6 km from Manglore, D.T.C. bus bearing No. DL 1P-A 3111 which was being driven by its driver in very rash and negligent manner collided with the deceased's car. The collision was so forceful that Renu Jain and her husband Suresh Chandra Jain died at the spot. At the time of the accident Renu Jain was 53 years of age and used to earn Rs. 6,000 per month by tuition and Suresh Chandra Jain was 55 years of age and he was working as Executive Engineer in P.W.D., Gopeshwar and used to earn Rs. 26,950 per month as salary. The claimants are the legal representatives/children of the deceased and filed claim petition for Rs. 12,50,000 for the loss of their mother and Rs. 36,00,000 for the death of their father as compensation. 6. Delhi Transport Corporation as well as driver of the bus contested the claim petition by filing their written statement. It has pleaded that the contents of the petition are wrong that Renu Jain was doing tuition work and used to earn Rs. 6,000 per month. It has further alleged that the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It has further pleaded that the bus was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, the liability of any compensation lies on the insurance company. 7. National Insurance Co. Ltd. also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement before the Tribunal. It has alleged that Renu Jain was the owner of Maruti Zen car and she was not having separate insurance, therefore, she is not entitled to get any compensation for the damage of her car. It has further pleaded that the accident took place due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the D.T.C. bus, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 8. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence on record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated 7.7.2006 for a sum of Rs. 6,18,000 in Claim Petition No. 23 of 2005, Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Rs. 8. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence on record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated 7.7.2006 for a sum of Rs. 6,18,000 in Claim Petition No. 23 of 2005, Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Rs. 10,25,176 in Claim Petition No. 24 of 2005, Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation, along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment vide judgment and award dated 7.7.2006. 9. The learned Tribunal decreed the claim petition against the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal before this Court. The claimant-appellant, Manasvi Jain has also preferred Appeal No. 484 of 2006 before this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 10. Heard Mr. A.K. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the appellant, D.T.C.; Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant No. 1; Mr. Manish Dalakoti holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Counsel for the insurance company, respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant Delhi Transport Corporation has confined his submission to this aspect that the liability by the Tribunal against the appellant has wrongly been fixed. He has submitted that the offending bus in question was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident, therefore, in any case, the liability would be on the insurance company, not on the Delhi Transport Corporation. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. has made the rival contention by submitting that in case, if the bus belonging to Delhi Transport Corporation, was insured with insurance company, even then the liability to pay the compensation would lie upon Delhi Transport Corporation and not with insurance company. In order to support his contention he has cited a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Nath Kothari and other etc., AIR 1997 SC 3444 . 13. I have gone through the record of the court below and I find that the offending bus in question bearing No. DL IP-A 3111 was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of the accident, i.e., 26.10.2004. Kailash Nath Kothari and other etc., AIR 1997 SC 3444 . 13. I have gone through the record of the court below and I find that the offending bus in question bearing No. DL IP-A 3111 was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of the accident, i.e., 26.10.2004. The insurance policy is available on record which is paper No. 11C and it clearly indicates that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. from 3.3.2004 to 2.3.2005. The policy paper No. 11C has not been denied or rebutted by the insurance company in any manner. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the offending bus in question was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of the accident. 14. On careful scrutiny of the judgment cited before me by the learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company, I am of the view that the cited decision does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same does not extend any help for the insurance company. 15. As it is quite clear from the evidence on record that the offending bus in question was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of the accident, hence, the liability to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal rests on the shoulders with the insurance company and not with the Delhi Transport Corporation (appellant). For the reasons stated above, A.O. Nos. 602 and 603 of 2006 filed by Delhi Transport Corporation are allowed. 16. Impugned judgments and orders dated 7.7.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T./ Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Claim Petition Nos. 23 and 24 of 2005 are liable to be modified up to the extent that the amount of compensation is payable by National Insurance Co. Ltd. and not the Delhi Transport Corporation (appellant). 17. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned Counsel for claimant-appellant, Manasvi Jain for enhancement of the same. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate, which is annexed as Exh. 41B to the paper book has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant was getting Rs. 26,924 per month and after deduction of Rs. 11,140 towards G.P.F., house rent, G.I.C. and the income tax respectively, it comes to Rs. 15,784 per month. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate, which is annexed as Exh. 41B to the paper book has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant was getting Rs. 26,924 per month and after deduction of Rs. 11,140 towards G.P.F., house rent, G.I.C. and the income tax respectively, it comes to Rs. 15,784 per month. Further the Tribunal, after considering the age of the deceased adopted the multiplier of 8, which is justified as per the latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In this way, the Tribunal granted Rs. 10,10,176 (Rs. 15,784 x 2/3 x 12 x 8) as compensation in favour of the claimant and further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000 towards mental pain, which in total it comes to Rs. 10,25,176. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation appears to be perfectly justified. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal filed by the claimant Manasvi Jain lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Appeal No. 484 of 2006 is dismissed. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 18. Let the copy of this judgment be placed in A.O. Nos. 603 and 484 of 2006.