Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 315 (UTT)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dubbi Devi

2016-07-05

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, hence are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. The accident occurred on 15.8.2007 at 10.30 A.M. when Dinesh Singh Rana (deceased), who was coming on his bicycle from Shyampur Bypass, was hit by a truck bearing no. UP-11B/8097, which was being plied from Rishikesh towards Haridwar. Dinesh Singh Rana, a youth of around 20 years, lost his life on account of this accident. His mother Smt. Dubbi Devi instituted the claim petition and vide impugned judgment dated 24.7.2010, compensation amounting to Rs.3,80,000/- along with six per cent annual interest from the date of filing such petition has been awarded to her and the liability to pay the same was fastened on the owner of the truck-Mr. Vinod Kumar. However, the insurance company was directed to satisfy the award and then recover the amount so paid from the truck owner on the premise that such vehicle was being plied in the territory of Uttaranchal without any valid permit. 3. The insurance company has challenged the award on the ground that since the deceased was a bachelor, hence as per the settled norms, as have been established in the several pronouncements of different High Courts and also the Hon’ble Apex Court, the dependency should have been one-half of the total annual income, but the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier after deducting 1/3rd from the annual income. Such annual income has been evaluated to be Rs.36,000/- per annum. 4. I accept the principle of deduction of one-half in case of unmarried youth. So, the multiplier should have been applied on the amount of Rs.18,000/-. This way, the compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- should have been awarded. 5. I dispose of the appeal (AO No. 370/2010) of the insurance company by modifying the impugned award to the extent indicated hereinabove. 6. As regards the validity of the permit, while adjudicating issue no.3 it has been disclosed that the permit of the vehicle was valid with effect from 24.4.2004 to 20.4.2009, which covers the date of accident, and it was issued from Uttar Pradesh. The said permit had a rider that the vehicle concerned would neither load or unload the luggage/goods between any two points within the territory of Uttarakhand unless and until countersigned by the Competent Officer of Uttarakhand. The said permit had a rider that the vehicle concerned would neither load or unload the luggage/goods between any two points within the territory of Uttarakhand unless and until countersigned by the Competent Officer of Uttarakhand. Since the accident occurred within the territory of Uttarakhand while such vehicle could not travel within its territory without countersigning of the said permit by the Competent Officer of Uttarakhand, hence it was assumed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal that it was travelling without having a valid permit within the territory of Uttarakhand. 7. I think the learned Tribunal has committed infirmity in arriving at such conclusion for the reason that the validity or invalidity of the permit, as has been enumerated hereinabove, was for the purpose of levying the commercial tax, and not for settlement of fastening the liability of the compensation. 8. So, on the above premise I overturn the findings of learned Tribunal and allow the appeal (AO No. 291/2010) of the motor vehicle owner i.e. M/s President Tata Chemical Pvt. Ltd. and fasten the whole liability of paying the compensation, as modified by this Court, on the insurance company. 9. Compulsory statutory amount deposited by the appellant in AO No. 291/2010, along with the interest which it has earned, shall be returned by the Tribunal to the said appellant. Registry is directed to remit the amount of compulsory statutory deposit along with the interest (if any), which it might have earned, pertaining to AO No. 370/2010, to the Tribunal concerned. 10. Let the lower court record be sent back.