Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 348 (HP)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Devi

2019-04-01

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hamirpur, H.P., Circuit Court Barsar, (for short ''Tribunal'') on 21.07.2018, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. The mother of the deceased Ram Murti filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming therein compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the appellant and one Manohar Lal, who happened not only to be the husband of the claimant, but also father of the deceased. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the same is not maintainable as the deceased was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the same was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as such, it was not liable to indemnify the owner. In addition thereto, the claim petition was also resisted on the ground that the accident had taken place due to own negligence of the husband of the claimant, therefore, the petition on behalf of the claimant in collusion with her husband i.e. respondent No.2 was not maintainable. 4. The learned Tribunal after relying upon a judgment of three Hon''ble Judges Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sunil Kumar and another , (2018) ACJ 1allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,12,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum. 5. It is vehemently argued by Shri Anil Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant that since the car in question was owned by father of the deceased, therefore, the claim petition that too by mother of the deceased was not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 7. The issue in question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by three Hon''ble Judges in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sunil Kumar and another , (2018) ACJ 1 wherein two Hon''ble Judges Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court had referred the following question to the larger Bench. "Whether in a claim proceeding under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988( hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') it is open for the insurer to raise the defence/plea of negligence?" 8. "Whether in a claim proceeding under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988( hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') it is open for the insurer to raise the defence/plea of negligence?" 8. The question was answered by holding that in proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act, it was not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim. Notably, this judgment, in turn, has been approved by another three Hon''ble Judges Bench decision in Shivaji and another versus Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others,2018 4 ACJ 2161. 9. At this stage, a faint attempt was made by Mr. Anil Tanwar, Advocate to question the award on merits. However, I find that the same is strictly in consonance with Section 163-A read with Second Schedule, as is evident from para-12 of the impugned award which reads thus:- "12. The petitioner in petition has alleged that the deceased was a professional driver and thereby used to earn Rs.3300/- per month. As PW3 has stated that the deceased by way of his profession was having sufficient earnings and able to save about Rs.3500/- per month. The respondent No.1 as RW1 has stated that he used to earn about Rs.8000-9000/- per month. This however has come so on record but there is no conclusive evidence to establish the exact income of the deceased. Taking it on lower side, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.3000/- per month. The annual income of the deceased therefore comes out as Rs.36,000/- per annum. The deceased as per petitioner at the time of accident was 26 years old. As per second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the relevant multiplier for age in between 25-30 years is 18 and thus the compensation as per same comes out as Rs.6,12,000/-. As per note appended to the schedule, 1/3rd of the amount of compensation is required to be deduced towards the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. The amount liable to be deducted towards personal expenses is therefore Rs.6,12,000:-3=Rs.2,04,000/-. The compensation amount payable, thus comes out as Rs.6,12,000- 2,04,000= Rs.4,08,000/-. In addition to this amount, petitioner is entitled for Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate. The amount liable to be deducted towards personal expenses is therefore Rs.6,12,000:-3=Rs.2,04,000/-. The compensation amount payable, thus comes out as Rs.6,12,000- 2,04,000= Rs.4,08,000/-. In addition to this amount, petitioner is entitled for Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the total compensation comes out as Rs.4,08,000+ 2000+ 2500= Rs.4,12,500." Likewise, the interest awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum is also in tune with the provisions of the Act. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out a single infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal or even dispute the amount or the quantum of the amount awarded as compensation. Though to be fair to the learned counsel for the appellant, he did make an endeavour to put-forth his contention that while awarding compensation, the multiplier is required to be determined on the basis of the age of the claimant and not the age of the deceased. However, this contention is equally without force and by now well settled by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) ACJ 2700wherein while reproducing its conclusions in para 61(vii), it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.