Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1723 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company v. Manu Devi

2014-11-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Appellant has called in question the award, dated 29th March, 2006, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in M.A.C. Petition No. 7-R of 04/02, titled as Smt. Manu Devi and another versus Sh. Suresh Kumar and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the appellant-insurer was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award?), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants and the driver-cum-owner have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the amount awarded is excessive and the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence and had driven the vehicle in breach of the mandate of law and the insurance policy. Brief facts: 4. Shri Surjeet Singh, son of the claimants, was travelling in Armada Jeep, bearing registration No. HP-10-907, on 18th February, 2002, at about 3.30 p.m., was being driven by its owner-cum-driver, namely Shri Suresh Kumar, rashly and negligently, met with the accident near Summerkot, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla and rolled down into a nullah. He sustained injuries, was taken to Civil Hospital, Rohru and died. FIR No. 19 of 2002 was lodged at Police Station Rohru. 5. The claimants have sought compensation to the tune of Rs.10,40,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he was the only son of the claimants, was undergoing education and was also having income from agricultural and horticultural vocations. 6. The insurer and the driver-cum-owner have contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the learned Tribunal on 16th January, 2003: ?1. Whether respondent No. 1 was driving jeep bearing No. HP-10-0907, on 18.2.2002 at about 3:30 PM near Samarkot, Distt. Shimla, HP in rash and negligent manner resulting in death or deceased Surjeet Singh, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? OPP 3. Whether claim petition is not legally maintainable, as alleged? OPR 4. Shimla, HP in rash and negligent manner resulting in death or deceased Surjeet Singh, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? OPP 3. Whether claim petition is not legally maintainable, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of Insurance policy and without effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.? Issue No. 1: 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that Shri Suresh Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 18th February, 2002, caused the accident, which resulted the death of Shri Surjeet Singh. The findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are not in dispute. Accordingly, the same are upheld. 9. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 and 4. Issue No. 3: 10. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable. However, I have gone through the record. The claimants, being the victims of the motor vehicular accident, filed claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ?the MV Act?) for grant of compensation. Thus, the claim petition was maintainable. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 4: 11. It is apt to record herein that the respondents have not led any evidence to discharge the onus to prove issue No. 4. The appellant-insurer has failed to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of Insurance policy and without effective driving licence. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are also upheld. Issue No. 2: 12. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the amount awarded is excessive. The argument is devoid of any force for the following reason: 13. A meager amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. How can it be said to be excessive? The claimants-parents have lost their budding son, who was the source of their old age, hope and help. 14. The argument is devoid of any force for the following reason: 13. A meager amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. How can it be said to be excessive? The claimants-parents have lost their budding son, who was the source of their old age, hope and help. 14. There is specific averment contained in the claim petition that the deceased was a student and was also earning more than Rs. 5,000/- from agricultural and horticultural vocations. This has also been proved by the claimants, but the Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.2,500/- per month. On what basis such assessment has been made, is not forthcoming. 15. Even, a labourer is earning Rs.200/- per day and if, at all, he would have been a labourer, he would have earned not less than Rs.4,500/- per month; was a bachelor, thus, it can be safely held that the claimants have lost their source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. 16. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the multiplier of 7' was applicable. The argument advanced is not correct. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 10' while keeping in view the age of the deceased and the claimants. 17. Having said so, the appellant-insurer has failed to carve out a case for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 18. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque. 19. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.