AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Kandpal, J.—Both the appeals arise out of the same motor accident and similar controversy is involved therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
A.O. No. 475/2006 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29-11-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 112 of 2005, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment, for the death of Smt. Revti Devi. The Oriental Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
A.O. No. 822/2006 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 11-9-2006, passed byMotor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Nainital, in MACT Case No. 239 of 2005, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment, for the injuries sustained by the claimant Ram Singh. The Oriental Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Background facts in a nutshell are that on 16-5-2005 Smt. Revti Devi along with her family members was coming to her home sitting in Tata Spacio U.A. 046905. Claimant Ram Singh was also travelling in the aforesaid vehicle. When the vehicle reached near Shyamkhet on Bhawali-Ramgarh motor road, due to rash and negligence driving its driver could not control the vehicle and it fell into 150 meters deep ditch, due to which three persons including Smt. Revti Devi died at the spot and other passengers including claimant Ram Singh sustained grievous injuries.
For the death of Smt. Revti Devi her legal heirs filed claim petition alleging therein that the deceased was 50 years of age and she was a household lady. She used to do agricultural work and also used to assist the family in other matters. Her monthly earning was Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, claimants filed claim for compensation of Rs. Ten lacs.
Injured Ram Singh also filed claim petition with the allegation that due to injuries he was admitted in Base Hospital Haldwani. In the accident his right knee bone and left hand bone were fractured at many places. He had to undergo operation and an amount of Rs. One Lac was spent on his treatment. He preferred claim petition for a sum of Rs. Five lacs.
The Opposite Party/owner of the vehicle filed written statement and denied the allegations of petition for want of knowledge and alleged that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company and the liability to pay compensation is of the insurance company.
The National Insurance Company also contested the claims and filed its written statement. It alleged that information of accident was not given to it. The driver had no valid driving license as it had no endorsement to ply the vehicle on hill routes. Therefore, the insurance company pleaded that the vehicle was being driven against the terms of policy and denied its liability.
The learned Tribunal framed issues in both the petitions. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, passed impugned awards directing the insurance company to satisfy the award amounts first and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred these appeals before this Court for enhancement.
In A.O. No. 475/2006, the respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, also filed cross objection against the judgment and award passed in that case.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
Firstly I take up A.O. No. 475/2006 for consideration. In the petition of this case, the Tribunal framed issue No. 4 on the point of quantum of compensation. According to the claimants deceased Smt. Revti Devi was 50 years of age and she was a household lady. Although they have alleged that she used to earn Rs. 5000/- from agricultural work, but no reliable and positive evidence has been filed in respect of her income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the dependency comes to Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal adopted multiplier of 11 and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- X 11= Rs. 1,10,000/-. I do not find any infirmity in the method adopted for calculation.The appeal for enhancement has no substance and the same is liable to be dismissed.
As regards the cross-objection filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, the contention of learned Counsel for the objector is that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the entry regarding hill endorsement on the driving license was forged and manipulated by the owner only for escaping his liability and has wrongly given the recoverable right against the owner. From perusal of written statement of the Insurance Company, it reveals that specific plea was taken that the license had no endorsement to ply the vehicle on hill routes. On the other hand the owner of the vehicle has alleged that the license was having such an endorsement. Copy of driving license was filed. On 12.7.2004 hill endorsement was made on it. The owner of the vehicle examined himself as D.W.1 and alleged that on 12.7.2004 he himself went to R.T.O. Office to obtain hill endorsement on the license. The Insurance Company produced D.W.2, Mahendra Singh Negi, employee of R.T.O. Office along with original record. This witness in his deposition has stated that the license to Prem Prakash was issued on 25.5.1998 for motorcycle and motor car and it was valid upto 24.5.2018. He also alleged that on 23.9.2003 Prem Prakash got endorsement of heavy transport vehicle and said endorsement was valid upto 22.9.2006. This witness specifically deposed that the said license is not valid for plying vehicles on hill routes. He also denied to have issued any duplicate license from the R.T.O. as per the record maintained in the Office. This witness further stated that for issue of duplicate license Rs. 400/- have to be deposited in the office, which Prem Prakash never deposited. He also stated that for obtaining hill endorsement fee is deposited, which was also not deposited by Prem Prakash and the duplicate license is a forged one. The Tribunal on the above evidence found that the owner who himself was the driver, had no valid driving license to ply vehicle on hill routes. The duplicate license possessed by him was having forged hill endorsement and the endorsement was made in order to shift the liability upon the insurer. The Tribunal held that the owner has not come with clean hands and thereby given recoverable right against the owner of the vehicle.
Learned Counsel for the cross-objector also submitted that in case if the driving license was not bearing hill endorsement, even then the license cannot be held invalid and the recoverable right should not have been given against the owner. As stated earlier, the driving license was bearing forged hill endorsement and the owner has not come with clean hands, therefore, the learned Tribunal has given the recoverable right. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I 6 do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal giving recoverable right against the owner. The cross objection bears no force and is liable to be dismissed.
A.O. No. 822 of 2006 has been preferred for enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation under the head of medical treatment and towards disability and the same should be enhanced.
From perusal of record it reveals that the claimant filed medical bills for an amount of Rs. 57,129/- and the learned Counsel for the opposite party raised objection that the bills have not been legally proved. However, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses. Income certificate paper No. 17-C/82 issued by Tehsildar Nainital has been filed on record according to which the income of the claimant was Rs. 7,000/- per month, the annual income being Rs. 84,000/-. The injured was permanently disabled upto 40% and disability certificate paper No. 17-C/80 was filed. The age of the claimant was 60 years at the time of accident and applied the multiplier of 8 and accordingly calculated 84,000/- X 8 X 40 = Rs. 2,68,800/-. The 100 Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss due to disability instead of Rs. 2,68,800/- giving reasons that the income from agriculture cannot be said to be a fixed amount. The agricultural work may be taken from the labourer. Although, there has been physical loss to the injured but his supervisory power appears to be the same. I find the Tribunal has rightly 7 awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation to the claimant/injured and the impugned award does not require any interference. The appeal for enhancement is also liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly both the appeals and the cross objection filed in A.O. No. 475/2006 are dismissed. The impugned judgments and awards are hereby confirmed.
Let a copy of the judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 822 of 2006.