Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 190 (UTT)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja

2016-05-03

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Both the appeals, titled above, are inter-connected together in the sense that they have arisen out of the same judgment rendered on 31.1.2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur). 2. Appeal No.217 of 2015 has been filed by the insurance company seeking to set aside the impugned judgment whereas, the dependents of deceased, namely, Smt. Pooja and others, have preferred the Appeal No.223 of 2015 seeking enhancement of the award. 3. The questioned accident occurred on 27.2.2011 at about 9 PM on Kashipur-Thakurdwara Road. Deceased Kapil Arya was a pillion rider on the motorcycle, being driven by its owner Mr. Manoj Kumar, which was dashed by a Bolero Jeep coming from behind in a wrong direction, resulting into the crushing of a leg of Mr. Kapil Arya with minor injuries to the motorcycle owner. Mr. Arya was immediately shifted to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 28.2.2011 at about 5 A.M. The bereaved family members strived to lodge the first information report soon after the death and also at some later stage, but all went in vain till they moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 19.9.2011. Even moving of such application could not lodge their report immediately and the Magistrate took one-month more for making himself satisfied about the genuineness of the occurrence. After all, the orders were issued and the first information report was lodged on 20.10.2011, with all details, as have been indicated above. Police came into motion but by that time, it was too late, inasmuch as, the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Mr. Dharam Singh had lost his life on 16.7.2011 in some other accident. So, the Investigating Officer submitted final report in the matter with the observation that it shall be quite futile to file the report (charge-sheet) in view of the death of accused. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company has vehemently argued about the falsity of the occurrence but such argument is not substantiated even by the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer on 31.12.2011, for the reason that the I.O., as a result of his investigation, has not denied the occurrence of the questioned incident dated 27.2.2011. He has simply stated that nothing can be proceeded legally in the matter in view of the death of the accused Mr. He has simply stated that nothing can be proceeded legally in the matter in view of the death of the accused Mr. Dharam Singh in yet another accident. So, raising an argument, thereby creating doubt about the genuineness of the occurrence, is apparently unsubstantial and is thus, rejected by this Court. 5. The youth Kapil Arya was nearly 35 years of age at the time of accident. He was a contractor. The insurance company has not agitated the quantum of compensation for the reason that his income tax returns were brought on the record and the Tribunal, after taking the average of such yearly returns, assessed the compensation. Deceased has left behind his widow, two adolescents including one daughter and his old-age parents. 6. So, in the light of above discussion, the appeal (AO No.217 of 2015) moved by the insurance company has no force and it is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 27.4.2015 passed in this matter is hereby vacated. 7. Now, I come to the merits of appeal (A.O. No.223 of 2015) which has been preferred by the dependents seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Learned Counsel for the dependents, placing reliance upon the precedent of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh & others, 2013 (3) TAC 697 (SC), has argued that 50 percent of income should have been added by the Tribunal towards future prospects of the deceased. However, such argument has been refuted by learned Counsel for the insurance company by relying on a recent precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala & others v. Gangalakshmamma and another, Civil Appeal No. 2836 of 2015 : SLP [Civil] No. 6016 of 2014, wherein the question, as regards adding of compensation towards the future prospects in case of deceased being self-employed or working on fixed basis, has been referred by another Bench of same Court to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a suitable larger Bench, as Their Lordships disagreed with the earlier decision of the Court. 9. That apart, the claimants also could not make out any strong ground to convince this Court for making any enhancement in the amount of compensation. Therefore, the appeal (AO No.223 of 2015) preferred by the dependents does not have any force and it is also dismissed. 10. 9. That apart, the claimants also could not make out any strong ground to convince this Court for making any enhancement in the amount of compensation. Therefore, the appeal (AO No.223 of 2015) preferred by the dependents does not have any force and it is also dismissed. 10. Let the payment be made to the claimants in terms of the impugned Award. 11. The amount lying in this Court in the form of statutory deposit be remitted to the concerned Tribunal. 12. A copy of this judgment along with the LCR shall be transmitted to the Court concerned for compliance. 13. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.