Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 664 (ALL)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manju Verma

2023-03-03

ALOK MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT Alok Mathur, J. Heard Sri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Balendu Shekhar who has appeared on caveat on behalf of claimant-respondent No.s 1 and 2. 2. In view of the proposed order issuance of notice to respondent No.s 3 and 4 is dispensed with. 3. By means of the present First Appeal From Order the appellant has assailed the judgment and award dated 21.12.2022 passed in Claim Petition No.505 of 2018 (Manju Verma and another v. Pankaj Kumar and others) by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Lucknow. 4. The brief facts in the present case are that a claim petition was preferred by the wife and daughter of late Ram Chandra Verma - the deceased, who was sitting on a passenger seat of the motorcycle bearing No.U.P. 41 AM 2435 being driven by one Vipin Kumar Verma on 15.6.2018 when it suddenly collided with a cow on the road. In the said accident the deceased Ram Chandra Verma received serious injuries and succumbed to the same on the same day. The vehicle was registered and Vipin Kumar Tiwari had a valid license at the time of the said accident. The vehicle was insured with the appellant who were issued notice and the matter was contested by them before the Tribunal. The evidence of the eye witness i.e. P.W.2 Mr. Satya Prakash Tiwari, who had witnessed the said accident was also recorded and after considering the entire conspectus of the case the claim was allowed and award of Rs.17, 86, 960/- has been made in favour of the claimants i.e. respondent No.s 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the said award on the ground that information with regard to the said accident was given to the police after 18 days and no F.I.R. was lodged in this regard and only because of the fact that no first information report was lodged he submits that the fact as given before the Tribunal are suspect and that the claim petition should have been dismissed. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the claim petition was preferred by respondent No.s 1 and 2 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and all the relevant evidence with regard to the said accident was adduced and the eye witness count of P.W.2 Satya Prakash Tiwari was also examined by the Tribunal and after considering the entire evidence it was noticed that the deceased met with the accident on 15.6.2018 when motor cycle No. U.P. 41 AM 2435 being driven by Vipin Kumar Verma collided with cow and in the said accident the deceased who was sitting on back seat received serious injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the same day. 7. It is noticed that the collusion of the motor cycle with cow on the road would be an accident for which it cannot be said that the driver of the motor cycle would have any contribution in the said accident. It is not normally seen that stray animals would suddenly emerge on the road and it is duty of the municipal corporation to prevent any such miss-happening. Sudden encounter with the animal on the road and colliding with the vehicle cannot be attributed to negligence of the driver of the vehicle in the present case. 8. It is further noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Tribunal has passed the award recording its finding on the basis of material facts during the proceedings before the Tribunal. Merely because there is delay in informing the police or lodging a first information report or during investigation some other facts comes to the knowledge of the investigating authority which may be deviant from the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be a ground for interference with the award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is a creature of the statute under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and it is duly empowered to receive evidence. Before the Tribunal the appellant was a necessary party and had put in appearance and participate in the proceedings. It is also noticed that full opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant to adduce whatever material or evidence are available with them to contest or challenge the claim preferred by the claimants. The Tribunal on the basis of the material adduced by either side has passed the impugned award. It is also noticed that full opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant to adduce whatever material or evidence are available with them to contest or challenge the claim preferred by the claimants. The Tribunal on the basis of the material adduced by either side has passed the impugned award. It is not the case of the appellant that the Tribunal has taken into consideration any fact which was not before it. Merely because the investigating authorities came to a different conclusion cannot be a reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The arguments of the appellant in this regard deserve to be rejected at the threshold. 9. This Court has also perused the compensation granted to the claimants . Considering various judgments of the Apex Court, especially in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others passed on 18.9.2018 in Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018. 10. In view of the aforesaid judgments the quantum of award requires interference as under:- With regard to loss of consortium and funeral expenses the award is modified to the following extent- 40,000/- +40,000/-+ consortium-Rs.15,000/- total Rs.95,000/- Towards expenses-Rs.18000/- 11. The second ground urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the age of the deceased was determined by the Tribunal to be 45 years. In this regard it is stated that according to the judgments passed in Pranay Sethi (supra)the multiplier of 13 ought to have been used by the Tribunal rather than the multiplier to 14. We have perused the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and in this regard the appellant is also aggrieved that the Tribunal has wrongly used the multiplier of 14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the multiplier of 13 be utilized in the present case. The award is modified as follows:- (A) Annual income of deceased & 12214/- monthly 1,46,568/- (B) Deduction 1/3 48,856/- (C) Amount remaining after deduction A-B 97,712/- (D) Amount after multiplier M-13 12,70,256/- (E) Addition 25% towards future prospects 25% 3,17,564/- (F) Loss of dependency D+ E 15,87,820/- (G) Loss of consortium, Estate and funeral expenses 40,000+40,000 +15000 95,000/- Total compensation payable 16,82,820/- In view of the above, the appeal stands partly allowed.