Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 556 (UTT)

CHANDRA DEVI @ CHANCHLA DEVI v. DEEPAK KHARKWAL

2015-12-08

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same accident/judgment, hence are being adjudicated together. 2. Insurance company has filed the appeal seeking to set aside the award against the insurance company, while the dependents (widow and three minor children) have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. Mishap took place at 7.15 o’clock in the morning of 24.4.2007, when a truck no. UA03-955, loaded with the cement, was going from Tanakpur to Champawat, skidded and met with the accident. The deceased, who was travelling in that truck, died in the accident. Smt. Chandra Devi (widow of deceased) and her three minor children filed the claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,93,500/-. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,93,500/- along with 8 per cent annual interest to be calculated on compounding basis at monthly rest with effect from the date of judgment i.e. 6.9.2008. 4. Having heard learned Counsel of the claimants as well as the learned Counsel for the insurance company, it transpires that the accident resulting in death of Kunwar Singh is not disputed. The only submission made by learned Counsel for the insurance company is that the version of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in such truck along with his own cement has been disbelieved by the Tribunal and it has been held that the deceased was travelling in said vehicle in the capacity of labour for loading and unloading the cement, and yet the Tribunal fastened the liability on the insurance company. Learned Counsel of the insurance company contended that, in fact, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, and was travelling in the said truck without any authority because that truck was meant for transporting goods, and not for carrying passengers. 5. Even if the contention of learned Counsel for the insurance company is accepted for a moment, then also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down otherwise in the following cases: (i) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V. & Others, Civil Appeal No. 3634/2008 decided on 16.5.2008. (ii) National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan & Another, (2013) 1 SCC 731 , 2013(1) UAD 388.. 6. (ii) National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan & Another, (2013) 1 SCC 731 , 2013(1) UAD 388.. 6. In both the above precedents, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that even the dependents of a gratuitous passenger are liable to be compensated by the insurance company provided the policy issued by it is Comprehensive/Packaged Policy, and not the simple Act Policy. 7. Having glanced over the policy paper issued by the insurance company, it is clear that the same is Comprehensive/Packaged Policy issued on the premium of Rs. 12,172, and it is not the simple Act Policy. Therefore, even if the status of deceased is considered to be of gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to his dependents. 8. As regards the quantum, learned Counsel for the insurance company, relying upon Smt. Sarla Verma case, argued that the claimants claimed the age of the deceased to be 40 years and the Tribunal has also accepted the same, therefore, the multiplier of 15, instead of 16, should have been applied. 9. I do agree with the above submission of learned Counsel of the insurance company. 10. Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the notional income of rupees three thousand per month. I think this does not require any interference. 11. So, after deducting the one-third towards the personal expenses, multiplier of 15 should have been applied on the amount of Rs. 24,000/-. Thus, it comes to Rs. 3,60,000/-. Rest of the amount, awarded under different heads, are left in tact. However, the rate of interest, as awarded by the Tribunal, shall be calculated with effect from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 31.7.2007, and not from the date of judgment. 12. So, the final amount of compensation shall be calculated along with the annual interest of 8 per cent, compounded monthly, w.e.f. 31.7.2007. 13. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. 14. Compulsory statutory amount shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. After calculating the amount, as directed by this Court, the amount of compensation shall be released in favour of the claimants as per their respective shares and without asking for any surety/security within one month from today. 15. Both the appeals stand disposed of in above terms. 16. Let LCR be sent back.