Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1327 (HP)

GUPAT RAM v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.

2009-12-21

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)- All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they all arise out of one accident and common questions of law and facts are involved in the same. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that an accident of Maruti Van No.HP-02-6325 took place on 24.6.2003. This vehicle was owned by Gupat Ram and being driven by his son Dharam Pal at the time of the accident. The vehicle fell into the river of Satluj. The driver survived as he fell outside the vehicle. The dead body of one person Dinesh was recovered from the bank of the river of Satluj. In the claim petitions, it was alleged that in fact, at the time of the accident, in addition to the driver Dharam Pal and Dinesh Kumar, deceased, three other persons Beli Ram, Karam Chand and Roshan Lal alias Sher Singh were also travelling in the vehicle. The stand taken by the owner and driver was that at the time of the accident, the only passenger was Dinesh and none of the deceased persons were travelling in the vehicle. The parties led evidence and after trial, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr held that in fact, there were five persons in the Maruti Van at the time when the accident occurred. It also held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van and awarded compensation. It found that the vehicle was not insured and held the owner and driver jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence the present three appeals. 3. The main contention raised by Sh.Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal gravelly erred in holding that the three deceased persons were travelling in the vehicle in question. I have gone through the entire records of the case. 4. PW/1 is one Mohan Lal. He states that the parties are known to him and since the vehicle in question was not insured, he had acted as a mediator between the parties and Gupat Ram had agreed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to each of the claimants. Suggestion put to him in cross-examination is that no such negotiation took place. 5. He states that the parties are known to him and since the vehicle in question was not insured, he had acted as a mediator between the parties and Gupat Ram had agreed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to each of the claimants. Suggestion put to him in cross-examination is that no such negotiation took place. 5. PW/2 purports to be an eye witness and according to him, in his presence on 24.6.2003 respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle and he had seen Dinesh Kumar, Beli Ram, Karam Chand and Sher Singh in the said vehicle. 6. Similarly is the statement of RW/3 who states that he had seen the deceased persons in the vehicle. 7. On the other hand, RW/1 Dharam Pal states that only Dinesh was travelling in the vehicle. RW/4 states that no negotiation had taken place in his presence. 8. RW/6 states that he had seen the vehicle and on the date of the accident and at that time, only one person was in the vehicle. In cross-examination he states that he came to know about the accident on the third day. Even if the statements of the eyewitnesses are discounted, there are other grounds to hold that the deceased were travelling in the vehicle. 9. PW/6 Head Constable, Swarup Ram has proved on record the FIR No.106/2003. In the FIR, it is statedthat as per the investigation carried out, five people including the driver were travelling in the vehicle. This FIR was lodged within a couple of hours of the accident. The second important factor is that Beli Ram, one of the deceased was the real brother of Gupat Ram. The other persons who died were also related to the respondents. All three persons could not have vanished into thin air on one day. There is no explanation on behalf of the owner and driver of the vehicle who were closely related to the deceased especially to deceased Beli Ram as to in what circumstances these people are missing. The body of Sher Singh was recovered from Sunni, a few days later which supports the version of the petitioners that the deceased died in the accident. The body of Sher Singh was recovered from Sunni, a few days later which supports the version of the petitioners that the deceased died in the accident. It is apparent that taking advantage of the fact that the bodies of the deceased were not recovered, the owner and the driver of the vehicle have set up this false case that the deceased were not travelling in the vehicle. This issue is accordingly decided against the appellants. 10. In FAO No.258 of 2005 relating to the death of Sher Singh, only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. In the case related to the death of Karam Chand, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/has been awarded. These are amounts even less than the amounts payable under ‘No Fault Liability’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence call for no interference. 11. As far as the case relating to the death of Beli Ram is concerned, the claimants themselves examined Ramesh Kumar, PW/5 who stated that Beli Ram used to work with him and he used to pay him Rs.60/-per day plus board and lodging. Thus, it is proved that the cash income of the deceased was Rs.1800/- per month plus free board and lodging. Therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the dependency of the deceased was Rs.2400/- per month. When the income was only Rs.1800/-, the dependency could not be Rs.2400/-. In addition to board and lodging, the deceased must have required some money for personal expenses and the dependency of the family is assessed at Rs.1600/- per month or Rs.19,200/- per year. Following the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 and accordingly the claimants are held entitled to Rs.2,68,800/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- as conventional damages. The widow is entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium. It has come on record that though the body of the deceased was not found, the claimants performed other last right ceremonies and they are awarded Rs.6200/-for the same. The total compensation, therefore, works out to Rs.2,95,000/-. 12. The widow is entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium. It has come on record that though the body of the deceased was not found, the claimants performed other last right ceremonies and they are awarded Rs.6200/-for the same. The total compensation, therefore, works out to Rs.2,95,000/-. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed, the award is modified and the claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum as ordered by the learned Tribunal. The appellants have failed to show any material to support their contention that the vehicle was insured. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 13. All the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.