Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 446 (MP)

Neelu v. Radheshyam Malviya

2011-04-11

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2011
ORDER 1. This order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 823 of 2008 since both the appeals arise out of common award passed by the Claims Tribunal, Indore. In Claim Case No. 209/2006 Raja is the injured and in claim case No. 210/2006 Premnarayan Yadav is the deceased. 2. In Claim Case No. 210/2006 wherein Premnarayan Yadav has died. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,19,500/- out of which the earning of the deceased has been accepted as Rs. 3,000/- per month. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, applying the multiplier of 16 looking to his age as 36 years Rs. 4,00,000/- has been awarded towards loss of dependency and Rs. 19,500/- in the head of other expenses. 3. In claim case No. 209/2006 the injured Raja has suffered the injuries in the Strenum and the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 44,000/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- under the head of injuries, Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation and special diet. While allowing the claim petition it was found that the driver was not possessing the valid driving licence, however, the direction to pay and recover has been issued. 4. During pendency of these appeals valid driving licence of the driver was produced by the appellants as well as the owner/respondent No. 1. Under the directions of this Court it was required to be verified. Accordingly a report was submitted by the Insurance Company as per the investigation made by the Sisodia Investigations dated 7.1.2011 and it was found that the driver was having valid driving licence of HGV transport dated 30.12.2002 issued from the RTO Dhar. Thereupon the endorsement of PSV +HGV was there. In view of the aforesaid, order was passed by this Court on 4.3.2011 directly that the effect thereof may be considered at the time of final hearing. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the amount so awarded is inadequate and meager, which may be enhanced in both the cases. While the owner contends that the liability of pay and recover as directed by the Tribunal is improper, which may be modified in view of the verification reports submitted by the Insurance Company itself. 6. While the owner contends that the liability of pay and recover as directed by the Tribunal is improper, which may be modified in view of the verification reports submitted by the Insurance Company itself. 6. Shri Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company contends that there appears two driving licence, however, even on submitting a report by the Insurance Company it cannot be accepted that the driver was possessing the valid driving licence. It is also submitted by him that the amount so awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate, which cannot be enhanced. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record first of all the issue with respect to pay and recover is required to be considered. The liability of pay and recover has been directed by the claims Tribunal because the valid driving licence was not produced as seized by the Police during investigation. While the driving licence has been produced by the owner which was shown to him by the driver and it has been verified by the Insurance Company during pendency of these appeals and it was found that the driver was possessing a driving licence having endorsement of PSV+HGY. He was driving toe vehicle Bus. In the circumstances when the driving licence produced before this Court has been verified by Insurance Company and found it valid, however mere having a seizure by the Police of some other licence would not be of any help to the Insurance Company. As per the report submitted by the Company it was found to be valid and correct driving licence. In view of the said driving licence the findings as recorded by the Claims Tribunal of PSV +HGV cannot be sustained and the respondents shall be liable to pay the amount so awarded by the Tribunal jointly and severally. Now coming to the point of enhancement after going through the record of both these cases, I find that in the death case an amount of Rs. 31,000/- lump-sum deserves to be enhanced while in the injury case the amount of Rs. 5,000/- may be enhanced in lump-sum. 8. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced in Appeal No. 787/2008 to the tune of Rs. 31,000/- lump-sum deserves to be enhanced while in the injury case the amount of Rs. 5,000/- may be enhanced in lump-sum. 8. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced in Appeal No. 787/2008 to the tune of Rs. 31,000/- and in Appeal No. 823/ 2008 to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.