Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 560 (RAJ)

Teeja Devi v. Dharampal

2011-03-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Since these Misc. Appeals relate to award dated 28.8.2000 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in MACT case Nos. 1407/1992, 1542/1992, 1822/92, 1903/1992, 1758/1992, 503/1993, 1759/92, 1736/92, 1408/92,1577/92/, 1704/92 and 1773/92, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. These appeals have been filed dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation and with the decision on Issues No.4 and 5 of the MACT exonerating the Insurance Companies New India Assurance Company Ltd. and United India Insurance Company from the liability of paying the compensation. 4. Brief facts as narrated in the claim petition are that on 8.3.1992 near Rampura Power House, Chomu Road, Jaipur Jeep RST 1958 and Truck N. DEL 5325 collided because of rash and negligent driving and excessive speed by both the drivers of the vehicles. It was a head on collision. Because of the collision, Sunita, Harpool, Mangal Chand; Gopal Lal, Rampal, Sardara Singh, Manju, Prem Chand, Smt. Meera, Gulab Chand. Suresh Kumar and Onad Ram died and one Ram Sahai sustained serious injuries. The respondent No.1, the driver, and respondent No.2 the owner of the truck and respondent No.4 the owner of the jeep did not file any reply to the claim petition. The respondent No.3 the Insurance Company of the truck and respondent No.5 the insurance company of the jeep contested the claim petition and filed their separate replies to the claim petitions. One injured person and legal representative of deceased persons also filed separate claim petitions. All the claim petitions were consolidated and have been decided by the same award. On the basis of the pleadings of both the sides, relevant issues were framed by the MACT. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the MACT decided issue No.1 in a manner that the accident has occurred because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. Issue No.2 has also been decided in favour of the claimants. Issue No.3 has also been decided in favour of the claimants. In regard to issues 4 and 5 the respondents 3 and 5 i.e. insurance companies of both the vehicles have been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation. 5. Mr. Issue No.2 has also been decided in favour of the claimants. Issue No.3 has also been decided in favour of the claimants. In regard to issues 4 and 5 the respondents 3 and 5 i.e. insurance companies of both the vehicles have been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation. 5. Mr. Virendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that while deciding issues No.4 in a manner that the jeep driver who was having a driving license to drive light motor vehicle was not authorised to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, as it was a light transport vehicle. The MACT has grossly erred in arriving at a conclusion that the light transport vehicle is a different vehicle from a light motor vehicle. A perusal of definition given in the Motor Vehicles Act will clearly show that the light motor vehicle also includes a transport vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which is less than 7500 kg. There is no other category like light transport vehicle. In such circumstances, the driver of the jeep who was having a license to drive L.M.V. was fully authorised to drive the vehicle in question. The MACT has wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was not a case of breach of policy condition with regard to jeep, hence its insurance company should not have been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. While deciding issue No.5 the MACT has held that the policy, which was produced with regard to truck involved in the accident is a forged policy and the insurance company could not have been held liable on the basis of this policy. The MACT has totally misread the facts of the case in this regard. The policy obtained by the claimants from the file of the Court of Magistrate before which the criminal case with regard to this accident was pending. In general the genuineness of policy was not in doubt, hence it was the duty of the insurance company of the truck to prove it by cogent and reliable evidence that the policy in question was forged one. In general the genuineness of policy was not in doubt, hence it was the duty of the insurance company of the truck to prove it by cogent and reliable evidence that the policy in question was forged one. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Raghupati Singh v. Kalua and others (2005 (4) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 769, T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others (2008) 3 SCC 748 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1646) and Raju Singh v. Ram Singh S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1711 of 1999 decided on 12.11.2009. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents insurance companies argued that the insurance companies have been rightly exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation by a detailed order. The findings on issues 4 and 5 arrived at by the MACT were based after a thorough discussion and the same are just and proper. 7. The United India Insurance Company took the objection that driver of the RST 1958 was not having a proper licence on the date of accident 8.3.1992 and after the accident on 17.3.1992 after depositing of the extra fee licence was made to drive the Light Transport Vehicle, which is against law. The find ings of the MACT on issue No.4 are reproduced hereunder:(Ventacular matter omitted...Ed.) 8. I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT. The United India Insurance Company was rightly absolved of its liability to pay compensation. The driver of the Taxi was not having a proper licence to drive the vehicle. It has been proved by the Insurance Company that after the death of driver, in the transport department some other person deposited the amount and got an entry on 17.3.1992 for driving commercial vehicle which has been proved by cogent evidence. The owner of the jeep clearly violated the condition of the policy. The finding on issue No.4 of the MACT stands confirmed. The United India Insurance Company rightly absolved of its liability. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of this case. In this matter the jeep driver was not authorised to drive the vehicle. 9. The findings on issue No.5 of the MACT reads as under:(Vernacular matter omitted ...Ed.) 10. The United India Insurance Company rightly absolved of its liability. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of this case. In this matter the jeep driver was not authorised to drive the vehicle. 9. The findings on issue No.5 of the MACT reads as under:(Vernacular matter omitted ...Ed.) 10. From the above finding it is clear that the New India Insurnace Company from its Kartarpura Branch has not issued any policy No. 6923561 dated 4.3.1992 to 3.3.1993 photocopy of which is Ex.9 and Ex. NA 5, enclosed with the record was not issued by them and it was a forged policy. Since it was a forged policy, the New India Insurance Company was rightly absolved of its liability to pay compensation. I am in agreement with this finding of the MACT. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The finding on issue No.5 thus stands confirmed. 11. Now I may consider the appeals filed by the claimants in relation to enhancement of the compensation amount in the common award, granted by the MACT one by one.SBCMA No. 2063/2000 12. The MACT has awarded Rs. 2,24,000/- for the death of Gopal. Gopal was working in the JDA and the MACT considered his pay Rs. 910/- and looking to future prospect considered this pay as Rs. 1800. Out of this amount one third was considered to be incurred by the deceased. The claimants stated that the age of Gopal was 40, but the MACT on the basis of date of birth recorded in the appointment order of JDA found that he was 30 years of age. On the basis that he was 30 years of age applied the multiplier of 15. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 2,07,000/-. The appellants in their appeal stated that the deceased was getting Rs. 4,000/- per month. But the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to place reliance on a single document showing pay of the deceased Rs. 4,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Gopal is just and proper. 4,000/- per month. But the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to place reliance on a single document showing pay of the deceased Rs. 4,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Gopal is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT that the deceased as per the order of the JDA produced by the claimants he was drawing salary in the pay scale of 910/- and looking to his prospects the MACT doubled the amount and fixed the monthly income to Rs. 1820/-. Out of which one third was deducted for the amount to be incurred by him. In this manner the multiplier which was used 15 for the age of 30 cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. 2,24,000/- on account of death of Gopal is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA No. 79/2001 13. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- for the death of Meera. Meera was housewife. Looking to her contribution as a wife of the claimant the MACT considered her income as Rs. 500/- per month. The claimant appellant in his appeal simply stated that the contribution of his wife towards him Rs. 500/- is on lower side. The claimant has not produced any proof regarding her income or her contribution towards her family. The MACT also applied the multiplier of 18 looking to the age of Meera as 20 years. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 1,08.000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Meera is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Meera towards her husband Rs. 500/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 18 for the age of 20 year cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 500/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 18 for the age of 20 year cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and the expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. 1,25,000/-on account of death of Meera is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA No. 1958/2000 14. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,39,400/- for the death of Prem Chand. Prem Chand was working as a cable worker. Since the claimants have not produced any proof that Prem Chand was earning Rs. 1100/- per month, determined the income of deceased Rs. 900/- per month, looking to the minimum wages at that time. Out of which one third was. to be deducted for his expenses. In this manner the contribution towards his family was determined to be Rs. 600/-. The claimant appellants in their appeal simply stated that the deceased used to give Rs. 1100/- per month. The MACT also applied the multiplier of 17 looking to the age of deceased as 30 years. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 1,22,400/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Premchand is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Prem Chand towards his family Rs. 600/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 17 for the age of 30 year cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. 1,39,400/- on account of death of Prem Chand is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA No. 1960/2000 15. The MACT has awarded Rs. 60,000/- for the death of Sunita. Sunita was daughter of claimants appellants aged about 8 years. As per the post-mortem report the MACT determined age of Sunita as 5 year and six months. The MACT granted one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The MACT has awarded Rs. 60,000/- for the death of Sunita. Sunita was daughter of claimants appellants aged about 8 years. As per the post-mortem report the MACT determined age of Sunita as 5 year and six months. The MACT granted one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The claimant appellants in their appeal simply stated that the award of Rs. 60.000/- is not just and proper and for other heads no amount was granted. The MACT looking to the age of Sunita at the time of accident as 5 years six months granted one time compensation Rs. 60,000/-. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Sunita is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to grant of one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 60,000/- for the death of Sunita and the said amount is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 1957/2000 16. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- for the death of Ram Pal. Ram Pal was working in Nagar Nigam. Since the claimants have not produced any proof that Ram Pal was earning Rs. 1630/- per month, determined the income of deceased as Rs. 900/- per month, looking to the minimum wages at that time. Out of which one third was to be deducted for his expenses. In this manner the contribution towards his family was determined to be Rs. 600/-. The claimant appellants in their appeal simply stated that they have filed Ex.10 which is salary certificate. The MACT in its finding observed that the said certificate is of Gulab Chand. The MACT also applied the multiplier of 15 looking to the age of deceased as 41 years. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 1,08,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Ram Pal is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Ram Pal towards his family Rs. 600/-. In this man Iner thmultiplier which was used 15 for the Jage of 41 year cannot be said to be unjust. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Ram Pal towards his family Rs. 600/-. In this man Iner thmultiplier which was used 15 for the Jage of 41 year cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT has rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of death of Ram Pal is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 2062/2000 17. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- for the death of Gulab Chand. Gulab Chand was working in the work of making agricultural implements. Since the claimants have not produced any proof that Gulab Chand was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, determined the income of deceased as Rs. 900/- per month, looking to the minimum wages at that time. Out of which one third was to be deducted for his expenses. In this manner the contribution towards his family was determined to be Rs. 600/-. The claimant appellants in their appeal simply stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- and he was only the person earning livelihood in their family. The MACT in its finding observed that the appellants have not produced any income certificate. The MACT also applied the multiplier of 15 looking to the age of deceased as between 35-40 years. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 1,08,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Ram Pal is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Gulab Chand towards his family Rs. 600/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 15 for the age between 35-40 year cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion of award of Rs. 600/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 15 for the age between 35-40 year cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion of award of Rs. 1.25,000/- on account of death of Gulab Chand is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA No. 2065/2000 18. The MACT has awarded Rs. 2,33,720/- for the death of Ondaram was working in the GSI and the MACT considered his pay Rs. 1933/-. Out of this amount one third was considered to be incurred by the deceased. The claimants stated that the age of Ondaram was 42, but on this basis the MACT determined his age as 42. On the basis that he was 42 years of age applied the multiplier of 14. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 2,16,720/-. The appellants in their appeal stated that the MACT has not considered the future prospect. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Ondaram is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT that the deceased was drawing salary Rs. 1933/-. Out of which one third was deducted for the amount to be incurred by him. In this manner the multiplier which was used 14 for the age of 42 cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. 2,33,720/- on account of death of Ondaram is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA No. 85/2001 19. The MACT has awarded Rs. 60,000/- for the death of Manju. Manju was daughter of claimant Shankarlal appellants aged about 2 and half years. As per the post-mortem report the MACT determined age of Manju as 2 years and six month. The MACT granted one time compensation in the amount of Rs. The MACT has awarded Rs. 60,000/- for the death of Manju. Manju was daughter of claimant Shankarlal appellants aged about 2 and half years. As per the post-mortem report the MACT determined age of Manju as 2 years and six month. The MACT granted one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 60,000/- as the MACT has already granted compensation for the death of his wife Meera in the same accident. The claimant appellant in his appeal simply stated that the award of Rs. 60,000/- is not just and proper and for other heads no amount was granted. The MACT looking to the age of Manju granted one time compensation Rs. 60,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Manju is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to grant of one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 60,000/- for the death of Manju and the said amount is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 2191/2000 20. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,39,400/- for the death of Mangal Chand. Mangal Chand was working as milk seller and by which he was said to have earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since the claimants have not produced any proof that Mangal Chand was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, determined the income of deceased as Rs. 900/- per month, looking to the minimum wages at that time. Out of which one third was to be deducted for his expenses. In this manner the contribution towards his family was determined to be Rs. 600/-. The claimant appellants in their appeal simply stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- and he was only the person earning livelihood in their family. The MACT in its finding observed that the appellants have not produced any income certificate The MACT also applied the multiplier of 17 looking to the age of deceased as between 28-30 years. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 1,22,400/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Mangal Chand is just and proper. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 1,22,400/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Mangal Chand is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Mangal Chand towards his family as Rs. 600/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 17 for the age between 28-30 years cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. 1,39,400/- on account of death of Mangal Chand is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 764/2001 21. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,46,600/- for the death of Suresh Kumar Chaudhary. Suresh Kumar Chaudhary was working as driver and by which he was said to have earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. Since the claimants have not produced any proof that Suresh Kumar was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, determined the income of deceased as Rs. 900/- per month, looking to the minimum wages at that time. Out of which one third was to be deducted for his expenses. In this manner the contribution towards his family was determined to be Rs. 600/-. The claimant appellants in their appeal simply stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- and he was only the person earning livelihood in their family. The MACT in its finding observed that the appellants have not produced any income certificate. The MACT also applied the multiplier of 18 looking to the age of deceased as 25 years. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 1,29,600/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Suresh Kumar is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Suresh Kumar towards his family Rs. 600/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 18 for the age of 25 year cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT has rightly computed the income of the deceased. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Suresh Kumar towards his family Rs. 600/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 18 for the age of 25 year cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT has rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. 1,46,600/- on account of death of Suresh Kumar Chaudhary is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected.SBCMA 1759/2000 22. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- for the death of Sardar Singh. Sardar Singh was working in Oil Mill and earning Rs. 2500/-. Since the claimants have not produced any proof that Sardar Singh was earning Rs. 25,00/- per month, determined the income of deceased as Rs. 900/- per month, looking to the minimum wages at that time. Out of which one third was to be deducted for his expenses. In this manner the contribution towards his family was determine to be Rs. 600/-. The claimant appellants in their appeal simply stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/- and he was only the person earning livelihood in their family. The MACT in its finding observed that the appellant have not produced any income certificate. The MACT also applied the multiplier of 15 looking to the age of deceased as between 35-40 years. In this manner the MACT has computed the compensation Rs. 1,08,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the death of Sardar Singh is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to contribution of Sadara Singh towards his family Rs. 600/-. In this manner the multiplier which was used 15 for the age between 35-40 years cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection to the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. In this manner the multiplier which was used 15 for the age between 35-40 years cannot be said to be unjust. The MACT rightly computed the income of the deceased. For the loss of love and affection to the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/- and for expenses of funeral the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. In my opinion the award of Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of death of Sardar Singh is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected. 23. The MACT has awarded Rs. 12,000/- for the injuries received by the claimant in the accident. The injured received fracture. The MACT in its finding stated that the claimant has not produced any document showing fracture of bone. It was stated that he remained in the Hospital for 7 days, medicines and mental agony suffered by the claimant, for that a lump sum of Rs. 12,000/- was awarded. The claimant appellant in his appeal stated that on account of accident he is not freely moving. The learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has argued that the award passed by the MACT in relation to the injuries received by Ram Sahai is just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT in regard to awarding Rs. 12,000/- for remaining in Hospital for 7 days and receiving treatment. In my opinion the award of Rs. 12,000/- on account of injuries received by Ram Sahai and remaining in Hospital for seven days is just and proper and thus the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be rejected. 24. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, the Misc. Appeals Nos. 2063/ 2000, 1759/2000, 1957/2000, 1958/2000, 1960/2000, 2062/2000, 2065/2000, 2076/ 2000, 2191/2000, 79/2001, 85/2001 and 764/ 2001 filed by the claimants deserve to be rejected and are hereby rejected. The common award dated 28.8.2000 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in MACT case Nos.1407/1992, 1542/1992, 1822/92, 1903/1992, 1758/1992, 503/1993, 1759/92, 1736/92, 1408/92, 1577/ 92, 1704/92 and 1773/92, stands confirmed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Order accordingly. *******