Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2118 (RAJ)

Jeewan Singh v. Manohar Singh

2017-10-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 16.1.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,54,800/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. 24.4.1997. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants-husband and minor children of Smt. Saroj with the averments that Smt. Saroj was aged 35 years and was involved in tailoring business, she used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month and used to contribute Rs. 1,500/- to the family. 3. On 5.2.1997, when she was riding on a bicycle alongwith her brother-Lun Singh, the offending vehicle a bus being driven by Manohar Singh rashly and negligently, struck the cycle and ran over Smt. Saroj resulting in her death on the spot, based on the said submissions, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,45,000/-. 4. Though appearance was made by driver and owner of vehicle, no reply was filed. 5. The Insurance Company filed its reply and contested the application. It was, inter alia, claimed that the accident occurred on account of negligence of Lun Singh, who was driving the bicycle rashly. The averments pertaining to the income of the deceased were also contested and the liability was denied on account of violation of policy condition alleging that the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence. 6. The Tribunal framed four issues, on behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited, on behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined and one report was produced. 7. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the bus. While deciding the quantum of compensation, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per month, deducting Rs. 300/- towards personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 17, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,42,800 was awarded for loss of income, towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to husband and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses was awarded and in all a sum of Rs. 1,54,800/- was awarded. 8. 1,000/- per month, deducting Rs. 300/- towards personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 17, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,42,800 was awarded for loss of income, towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- was awarded to husband and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses was awarded and in all a sum of Rs. 1,54,800/- was awarded. 8. While deciding the issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the vehicle in question was a 'medium passenger vehicle' and the driver was in possession of driving licence to drive 'heavy goods vehicle', the driver was not in possession of requisite driving licence and exonerated the Insurance Company. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the Tribunal committed error in awarding meagre compensation. It was submitted that from the material available on record, it was proved that the deceased used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month, however for no reason, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month. Further submissions were made that the deduction of personal expenses made is excessive and that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium is meagre and that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount to the children for loss of love & affection and, therefore, the award deserves modification. 10. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside to the said extent. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner also contested the finding of the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the driver was in possession of requisite driving licence and, therefore, the exoneration of the Insurance Company was not justified. 12. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jamna Devi & Ors.: 2004(3) WLC (Raj.) 177. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and the same does not call for any interference. 12. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jamna Devi & Ors.: 2004(3) WLC (Raj.) 177. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and the same does not call for any interference. Further submissions were made that the finding of the Tribunal pertaining to the driver being not in possession of requisite driving licence also does not call for any interference, inasmuch as, the vehicle admittedly was a 'passenger vehicle' and the driver was in possession of driving licence to drive 'goods vehicle' only and, therefore, in absence of requisite driving licence, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application qua the Insurance Company, which determination does not call for any interference. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a bare look at the assessment made by the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- per month based on the statement of her husband-Jiwan Singh that the deceased used to sew 1-2 suits per day and used to charge Rs. 40/- per suit. Based on the said assertion, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,200/- per month by holding that the deceased used to sew one suit per day and after taking into consideration the probability of her not being able to get work on all the 30 days, the income was assessed at Rs. 1,000/- per month. The said assessment by the Tribunal about the income appears to be just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. However, the Tribunal has assessed the personal expenses at Rs. 300/- per month, which in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 is excessive as there are four dependents on the deceased and, therefore, the deduction can't be more than th. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 16. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 is excessive as there are four dependents on the deceased and, therefore, the deduction can't be more than th. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 16. So far as the amount awarded towards loss of consortium is concerned, the same is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of love & affection to the children, to which they are entitled at Rs. 10,000/- each. The amount awarded towards funeral expenses does not call for any interference. 17. In view thereof, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 750 x 12 = 9000 x 17 = 1,53,000 + 25,000 + 30,000 + 2000 = Rs. 2,10,000/-. 18. Coming to the issue of liability of the Insurance Company, a bare look at the registration certificate of the vehicle indicates that the class of vehicle indicated is 'heavy motor vehicle', the vehicle has been described as a Shaktimaan Truck, however, the Regional Transport Authority by its endorsement dated 7.4.1999 has converted the same from a truck body to a passenger vehicle and the sitting capacity has been enhanced from 6 to 31. The insurance policy (Ex./12) also indicates the passenger carrying capacity at 31 and has described the vehicle as a bus. 19. A look at the driving licence of the driver (Ex./13) indicates that the same was initially issued on 29.6.1989 authorizing him to drive 'heavy motor vehicle' and a further endorsement was made as 'for HGV only' the said licence was thereafter renewed from time to time and lastly on 18.1.997 till 17.1.2000. 20. It would be noticed that under section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') was amended w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and the various types of transport vehicle were deleted and only one category of transport vehicle as Section 10(2)(e) was inserted. The said category of transport vehicle as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 5826/2011, decided on 3.7.2017 includes the 'medium passenger vehicle', 'medium goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. 21. The said category of transport vehicle as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 5826/2011, decided on 3.7.2017 includes the 'medium passenger vehicle', 'medium goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. 21. As already noticed hereinbefore, the driving licence of the driver was renewed lastly on 18.1.1997 and the accident took place on 5.2.1997 and in those circumstances, it would be deemed that on the date, when the renewal took place in the year 1997, the same pertained to authorizing the driver to drive transport vehicle as envisaged under Section 10(2)(e) of the Act, which includes all the four types of vehicle as already noticed hereinbefore, i.e. 'medium passenger vehicle', 'medium goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. 22. The Tribunal on account of the weight of the vehicle indicated in the registration certificate, categorized the same as 'medium passenger vehicle' and found that as the driver was having licence to drive 'heavy goods vehicle', he was not in possession of a valid driving licence. The said finding in view of the above discussion pertaining to the categorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, held that the driver was in possession of requisite driving licence to drive 'heavy goods vehicle' and, therefore, the exoneration of the Insurance Company, also cannot be sustained. 23. In view of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the owner are allowed. The award impugned dated 16.1.1999 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- instead of 1,54,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 55,200/- the claimants are entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e. 24.4.1997 till the date of actual payment. 24. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 is set aside and it is held that along with the driver and owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company would be jointly and severally liable for making payment of the amount of compensation. The enhanced amount of compensation along with interest be paid to Jiwan Singh to the extent of 70% and to the three children i.e. Rajendra Singh, Laxman Singh and Sharvan Singh to the extent of 10% each. 25. The enhanced amount of compensation along with interest be paid to Jiwan Singh to the extent of 70% and to the three children i.e. Rajendra Singh, Laxman Singh and Sharvan Singh to the extent of 10% each. 25. The Insurance Company would make payment of the amount of compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment and would refund the amount deposited by the appellant-owner and/or paid to the claimants.