Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 132 (UTT)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. BABITA DEVI

2013-03-14

B.S.Verma

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) This appeal, u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.07.2012 passed by District Judge/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal, in M.A.C. No.02 of 2011, whereby the claim petition has been allowed and the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment is made. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 17.6.2010 at about 11:30 PM within village Naugaon Patti Maundarsyun a Max Pickpup no.UK 12 CA/0106 met with an accident which was being driven at the time of accident by the deceased Dheeraj Singh. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to technical snag in the vehicle. At the time of his death, the deceased was 34 years of age and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by driving. The claimants thus claimed a sum of Rs.27,50,000, as compensation. 3. The claim petition was contested by the insured/owner of the vehicle by filing a written statement in which it was categorically stated that the vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently by the deceased. It was also contended that the relevant papers of the vehicle were up to date and legally valid. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company also filed its separate written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. It was also stated that the deceased was not a permanent driver in the vehicle in question and the driving license held by him did not contain hill endorsement. It was also pleaded specifically that the deceased was himself driving the vehicle and as such he could not be benefited for his own fault i.e. rash and negligent driving. 5. An application was moved by the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Act which was allowed by the Tribunal and accordingly the appellant was allowed to contest the claim. 6. The learned tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. 7. The Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the claim petition against the Insurance Company and directed the compensation as stated above. 8. 6. The learned tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. 7. The Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the claim petition against the Insurance Company and directed the compensation as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the deceased was himself driving the vehicle therefore for his own negligence the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 10. I have perused the claim petition. The claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A read with Section 140 of the Act. For no fault liability, claim petition u/s 163-A of the Act is very well maintainable. Therefore, negligence has no relevance in deciding the claim petition. 11. I find no error in the impugned judgment since it has been filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Annual dependency has been determined on the basis of notional income and multiplier has rightly been applied in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC). Therefore, no interference is called for. 12. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Impugned judgment and award dated 07.07.2012 passed by District Judge/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal, in M.A.C. No.02 of 2011, is confirmed. 13. Cross objections CLMA No.12687 of 2012 also stands dismissed. 14. Statutory amount deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 15. Let the lower court record be returned to the M.A.C.T. concerned.