Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 651 (UTT)

RAMESH CHANDRA SINGH RANA v. JAWAHAR SINGH

2012-10-09

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] This appeal U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has been filed against the judgment and award dated 17-4-20 10, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 89 of 2008, Jawahar Singh and another vs. Ramesh Chandra Singh and others, by the owner of vehicle. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 7.1.2008 at about 4-40 A.M. Manoj Singh was going to Lalkuan from his house to do labour work, riding in three-wheeler U.A. 04-E-2078. The driver was driving the vehicle in a high speed and when the three-wheeler reached near Transport Line Over fly, the driver of the three-wheeler dashed with some unknown truck, due to which Manoj Singh sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot instantaneously. The report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station. The claimants, who are parents of the deceased filed claim petition and alleged that the deceased was a skilled labour and used to earn about Rs. 5000/- per month. 3. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their written statement and alleged that the accident had occurred due to the rashness of an unknown truck. The three-wheeler was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and its driver was possessing valid and effective driving license, therefore, the owner and driver have no liability of compensation. 4. The opposite party No.3 insurance company also filed its written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. It was further alleged that the burden to prove this fact that the vehicle was being driven with valid documents, is upon the owner of vehicle. 5. The learned Tribunal on the pleadings of parties framed necessary issues in the claim petition. Thereafter the claimants examined P.W. 1 Jawahar Singh and also filed documentary evidence. The opposite parties did not adduce oral evidence but filed documents. The learned Tribunal after considering the material on record has held that the three-wheeler was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and the deceased had died in the said accident. It was also held that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. The other documents of the vehicle were found valid. Accordingly, the claim petition was decreed for a sum of Rs. It was also held that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. The other documents of the vehicle were found valid. Accordingly, the claim petition was decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,42,000/- as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, against the insurance company and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to the claimants within a period of sixty days. However, the insurance company was given the right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal. 7. The only submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted is that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death in the accident and the claimants are his parents, therefore, the deduction towards personal and living expenses should have been 50%, but the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law by making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1002. 8. I have gone through the above cited judgment. The Apex Court in para-3 1 of the judgment has observed that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different Principe. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. In the case at hand the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are his parents. Therefore, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should have been done by the Tribunal as 50% instead of 1/3rd. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum and if 50% is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased the net annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 18,000/-. The tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 10 taking the age of father of the deceased in between 45-50 years. Therefore, the compensation comes to Rs. 18,000/- X 10= Rs. 1,80,000/-. 36,000/- per annum and if 50% is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased the net annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 18,000/-. The tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 10 taking the age of father of the deceased in between 45-50 years. Therefore, the compensation comes to Rs. 18,000/- X 10= Rs. 1,80,000/-. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses. In this way the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-+ Rs. 2,000/-= Rs. 1,82,000/-. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving license therefore the Insurance Company was given the right of recover against the owner of the vehicle and this finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. 9. So far as the interest part is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment and the same is reasonable and does not require interference. 10. From the discussion made above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/-, as compensation (instead of Rs. 2,42,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal) from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The insurance company shall have the right of recovery of the amount of compensation against the owner of the vehicle as has been directed by the Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited by the insurance company before the Tribunal concerned, and the amount has already been withdrawn by the claimants. 12. The claimants are directed to deposit the amount withdrawn by them in excess of the amount of compensation awarded by this court, before the MACT concerned within a period of eight weeks. 13. The appellant/owner of the vehicle is also directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by this court before the MACT concerned within a period of two months. 14. After the deposit of amounts by the claimants and the owner of the vehicle, insurance company shall be entitled to get the said amount. 15. 13. The appellant/owner of the vehicle is also directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by this court before the MACT concerned within a period of two months. 14. After the deposit of amounts by the claimants and the owner of the vehicle, insurance company shall be entitled to get the said amount. 15. Let the statutory amount deposited before this court, be remitted to the MACT concerned.