Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 122 (CHH)

VIKAS KUMAR VERMA v. LACHIYA DEVI

2012-04-25

N.K.AGARWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This is owner's appeal against the award dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korea (Baikunthpur) in claim case No. 60/2009. 2. As against compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- claimed by the unfortunate widow and children (respondents No. 1 to 8) of deceased - Natthuni Singh, aged about 60 years, by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Act') for his death in the motor accident on 13.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,60,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence led held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of new Scorpio bearing Chasis No.92D 26359 and Engine No.G.C. 94D 11486 by its driver - Vikki @ Nazim @ Sourabh Jadhav, respondent No.9 herein; Natthuni Singh died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; respondent No. Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited not liable for payment of compensation as the vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions at the time of accident; assessed and awarded the aforesaid amount of compensation against the appellant as well as against respondent No.9 with a direction to respondent No.10/insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover it from the appellant/owner and driver of the vehicle in question. 4. Shri Sanjay Patel with Shri Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the respondent No.9 was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, inasmuch as, he was possessing learner's licence to drive light motor vehicle, which is as good as regular licence, and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in passing the pay and recover order. He would further contend, the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/5th towards personal expenses of deceased and thereby in awarding Rs.2,60,400/- as compensation. 5. Per contra, Shri D.N. Prajapati with Shri M.T. Haider, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 8 supported the award impugned and submitted: the deceased - Natthuni Singh has left behind him as many as 8 dependents, and therefore, the Tribunal has not erred in deducting only 1/5th of the income of deceased towards his personal expenses. 6. Shri Amrito Das with Ms. 6. Shri Amrito Das with Ms. Tanushree Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 10/insurance company also supported the award impugned and submitted: as per policy of insurance (Ex.D.3), the vehicle in question could have been driven by a person holding an effective learner's licence subject to condition that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which is lacking in this case, inasmuch as, duly licenced person was not sitting along with the driver of the vehicle, and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating the insurer from its liability with a direction to it to first pay the amount of compensation and then recover it from the owner and/or driver of the vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 8. The two questions fall for consideration of this Court are : (i) whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case is shockingly on higher side? And (ii) whether the Tribunal has erred in fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant? 9. I shall first examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The Tribunal, after assessing the income of deceased as Rs.3000/per month and after deducting 1/5th of the income of deceased towards his personal expenses as claimants/dependents are 8 in number, assessed the claimants' annual dependency at Rs.2,400/- per month and Rs.28,800/- per annum; looking to the age of deceased as 60 years, applied multiplier of 8 and awarded Rs.2,30,400/- as compensation to the claimants on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.30,000/- on other heads (Rs.20,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.5000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses) and thus awarded Rs.2,60,400/- as compensation to the claimants. Considering the fact that claimants are 8 in number and there is nothing on record suggesting that the claimants were at all not dependents on deceased, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal had not erred in deducting only 1/5th of the income of deceased towards his personal expenses. 11. In view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. 11. In view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is somewhat on lower side, inasmuch, as the Supreme Court in the above case has prescribed the multiplier of 9 for the age group between 56 to 60 years. 12. In view of above, I do not find any scope for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. In order to appreciate the second question, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads thus: "3. General.- The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as-(a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c) there is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background as under : L Note: The paining on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters squares and the letter "L" shall not be less than 10 centimeters high, 2 centimeters thick and 9 centimeters wide at the bottom: Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b)" 14. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, has held in para 94 of its judgment that the rules validly framed become part of the statute and such rules are required to be read as a part of the main enactment. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, has held in para 94 of its judgment that the rules validly framed become part of the statute and such rules are required to be read as a part of the main enactment. 15. The combined effect of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 along with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is that if the driver of the vehicle was holding learner's licence, then he must be accompanied by an instructor holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. In the absence whereof, it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving licence. 16. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the appellant did not comply with the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, inasmuch as, neither there is painted in the front and rear 'of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background nor the driver holding learner's licence is accompanied by an instructor holding an valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle, and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation with a direction to first pay the amount of compensation and then recover it from the owner and respondent No.9. 17. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove the appeal filed by the owner, on the face, is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.