Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1044 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Magi Devi

2016-07-22

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 20.3.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra District Hanumangarh, whereby, the Tribunal for the death of one Rajendra has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,34,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application. 2. The application for compensation was filed by Smt. Magi Devi and Subhash, mother and brother of deceased Rajendra claiming a sum of Rs. 39,83,000/- inter-alia with the averments that on 2.11.2008 Rajendra went in Tata 407 for bringing ijkyh (fodder) to village Kharkadi, Haryana and from there he along with Duni Ram, owner of the vehicle, after loading the fodder started from Haryana, the vehicle was being driven by Devi Singh, the entire vehicle was filled with fodder and for ensuring that the fodder does not fly away on account of speedy winds the driver required the deceased Rajendra to sit on the fodder. The vehicle was being plied on Jhansal-Chanabadi road when the same was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and the vehicle left the road resulting in a branch of a tree on the road side striking Rajendra on the head, which resulted in serious injuries to Rajendra; he was taken to hospital at Bhadra where he succumbed to the injuries. 3. It was claimed that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver; the deceased was aged 25 years and used to earn Rs. 8000/- per month from agricultural operation at his 23 Bigha agriculture land. The claimants, mother and minor brother, were dependents on the deceased and based on the said averments compensation, as noticed hereinbefore, was claimed. 4. The application was resisted by the non-claimants. The driver and owner filed reply and disputed that deceased Rajendra used to earn anything from agricultural operations and the accident occurred on account of his own negligence. As the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the liability to make payment of compensation was on the Insurance Company. 5. Appellant Insurance Company also filed its reply and disputed its liability. As the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the liability to make payment of compensation was on the Insurance Company. 5. Appellant Insurance Company also filed its reply and disputed its liability. It was submitted that the driver was not having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured for transportation of goods and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to make payment of compensation. 6. Based on the averments of the parties, the Tribunal framed five issues and on behalf of claimants two witnesses were examined and 11 documents were exhibited, on behalf of respondents two witnesses were examined and 09 documents were exhibited; after hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 3, Devi Singh, driver of the vehicle, and it cannot be said that the deceased was negligent. While dealing with the liability of the appellant Insurance Company, the Tribunal found that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods in the vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable. The other objections raised were not substantiated by the Insurance Company. Based on the said findings, the Tribunal determined the amount of compensation and after taking the age of the deceased at 25 years and locking to the fact that he was unmarried, while taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month, a multiplier of 18 based on the age of the deceased was adopted and, where after, compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards transportation and funeral expenses and in total a sum of Rs. 3,34,000/- was awarded as compensation. 7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that from the material available on record, it is apparent that deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the transport vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for making payment of compensation. It was further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in adopting the multiplier based on the age of the deceased and, therefore, award deserves to be quashed and set aside qua the appellant Insurance Company/modified. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants opposed the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant. It was further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in adopting the multiplier based on the age of the deceased and, therefore, award deserves to be quashed and set aside qua the appellant Insurance Company/modified. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants opposed the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as owner of the goods, which fact is well established from the evidence available on record and, therefore, the Insurance Company is statutorily liable for making payment of compensation. It was submitted that the award of compensation based on the age of deceased is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the application for compensation reveals that it was the specific case of the claimants that deceased hired the truck for bringing fodder from Haryana and was travelling in the truck when the accident took place on its way back from Haryana when the vehicle was filled with fodder and he was sitting on the fodder. The witnesses, who were examined were cross-examined on the said aspect and they withstood the cross-examination. 11. In view of the fact that deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as owner of the goods, the liability of the appellant Insurance Company is governed by provisions of Section 147(1) (b)(i) of the Act, which requires a Policy of Insurance to insure the person specified in the Policy against any liability, which may be incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. 12. In view thereof, the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant regarding liability has no substance and the same is, therefore, rejected. 13. So far as the adoption of multiplier based on the age of deceased/dependent is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the law on the point has applied the multiplier based on the age of deceased, which aspect, in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be just & proper and does not call for any interference. 14. 13. So far as the adoption of multiplier based on the age of deceased/dependent is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the law on the point has applied the multiplier based on the age of deceased, which aspect, in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be just & proper and does not call for any interference. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and same is, therefore, dismissed. At the time of admission of the appeal, on deposit of 50% of the award, execution of rest of the award was stayed. It is directed that now the appellant Insurance Company shall make payment of rest of the amount of award within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment.