Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 450 (JHR)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bina Devi

2013-04-05

N.N.TIWARI

body2013
JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/Award dated 16.03.2011 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, F.T.C. 11, Bokaro in Motor Vehicle Claim Case no.32 of 2009. 2. Since learned counsel for the respondent-claimant nos. 1 to 5 have appeared, the appeal has been heard in presence of both the parties. 3. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment/Award on three fold grounds: (i) the finding of learned Tribunal regarding validity of licence is based on no evidence and the judgment is perverse; (ii) learned Tribunal has erroneously taken the multiplicand to double the monthly salary and has also committed error in doubling the amount of salary in the light of the decision of this Court in Archana Jha Vrs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2008)4 JLJR 567 ] and (iii) learned Tribunal has committed an error in granting of Rs.50,000/-under the head of loss of consortium as against the fixed amount of Rs. 5,000/- as per the Schedule II of section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that learned Tribunal has thoroughly discussed the facts and material on record and has given specific finding that the driving licence of the driver was seized in Purulia P.S. Case no. 31/09 (Exhibit-5) and that was a valid driving licence. The appellants have not adduced any contrary evidence on record. Learned Tribunal, has rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid driving licence on the alleged date and time of accident in which the deceased died. Learned Tribunal has discussed the circumstances in detail under which the multiplier has been applied and the amount of salary has been fixed and has relied on the principle laid down in the case of Archana Jha (supra). There is no error or illegality in the said finding of learned Tribunal. 5. So far as granting of compensation for loss of consortium is concerned, though Schedule II of section 163(A) of the Act provides for the amount of Rs.5000/-, the effect of the said schedule is diluted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Sarla Verma Vrs. Delhi Transport Corpn. & Ors.”{2009(2)TAC 677(SC)} 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. I also perused the impugned Judgment/Award. 7. Delhi Transport Corpn. & Ors.”{2009(2)TAC 677(SC)} 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. I also perused the impugned Judgment/Award. 7. I find that learned Tribunal has thoroughly discussed the facts, material and evidence on record and has held that the driving licence in question was seized in connection with Purulia P.S. Case no.31/09(Exhibit-5) and the same was found valid driving licence. He has further categorically observed that no contrary evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company-opposite party to rebut the same. 8. Learned Tribunal on that basis has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid driving licence on the alleged date and time of accident in which the deceased died. 9. Learned Tribunal has also throughly discussed the age and the prospect of the deceased and the evidences (Exhibits-1, 2 & 3) and has recorded his finding on the basis thereof. Learned Tribunal has also considered the facts and circumstances appearing on record in the light of the decision of this Court in Archana Jha's case (supra) and has determined the amount of compensation on the basis of the facts and evidences on record and in accordance with law. 10. I find no illegality or incorrectness in the said findings. 11. However, so far as the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, Schedule II of section 163(A) of the Act clearly provides compensation of a fixed amount of Rs. 5000/-. As against that, learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/-for the loss on that count. No special reason has been assigned for the said deviation and awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/-against the compensation amount prescribed in Schedule II of section 163(A) of the Act. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents though tried to support the said finding, conceded that there is no such material on record for such deviation from the said provision and determination of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. 13. In view of the above, the said part of the Judgment/Award of learned Tribunal granting compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as against Rs. 5000/- prescribed in the Schedule II of section 163(A) of the Act is without any legal basis and the said part of the award is set aside. 50,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. 13. In view of the above, the said part of the Judgment/Award of learned Tribunal granting compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as against Rs. 5000/- prescribed in the Schedule II of section 163(A) of the Act is without any legal basis and the said part of the award is set aside. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent holding and awarding compensation of Rs.5000/-for the loss of consortium and reducing the amount of Rs. 45,000/- from the total amount of compensation in the impugned Award. The rest of the judgment/Award is affirmed and the appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. 14. The office is directed to transfer the amount of the statutory amount to learned Tribunal, as prayed for by learned counsel for the appellants.