AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijender Singh Malik, J.—The above mentioned four appeals are directed against the award dated 10.3.2010. Smt. Murti Devi and others
filed claim petition No. 1 of 2008 on the death of Sukhbir Singh and Smt. Phoolpati filed claim petition No. 2 of 2008 on the death of her husband
Ram Kishan. The above mentioned two persons died in a roadside accident that took place on 13.8.2008. Learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, ""the Tribunal"") has allowed the claim petitions vide the impugned award, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as
compensation in claim petition No. 1 of 2008 and a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- in claim petition No. 2 of 2008. Out of the aforesaid appeals, FAO
No. 2859 and 2860 of 2010 have been filed by Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer against owner and driver of
the offending vehicle challenging its liability to satisfy the award. These are the cases where initially, the insurer was directed to satisfy the award
and was given recovery rights against respondent No. 2 to recover the amount paid. The insurer claims that it was not liable to satisfy the award
even in the first instance because the insurance policy itself has been void because it was obtained by non-disclosure of a material fact.
The claimants have brought FAO No. 6693 of 2010 and 770 of 2011 and they have sought enhancement of compensation.
On 13.8.2008 at about 4.00 PM, Ram Kishan, Sukhbir, Raju and Dalel Singh were standing in front of the house of Ram Kishan and they were
talking. In the meanwhile, a jeep bearing engine No. G-27017656 chasis No. T-57049867 C-07 came at a very high speed and hit Ram Kishan,
Sukhbir and Raju. Ram Kishan and Sukhbir died on account of the injuries.
In claim petition No. 1, it has been alleged that Sukhbir Singh was 65 years old and had retired as a JBT teacher. It has been further pleaded
that he was getting pension of Rs. 6,000/- per month and used to earn Rs. 60,000/- per annum by doing agricultural work. It has been further
claimed that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was spent in his treatment that continued from 13.8.2008 to 17.8.2008 at PGIMS, Rohtak and then in Oxygen
Hospital, Rohtak upto 20.8.2008. Claimants, Maruti Devi and others have sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 15.00 lakhs.
In claim petition No. 2, Phoolpati has alleged that her deceased husband was 62 years of age and was an agriculturist. He is claimed to have
been earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. She has prayed for a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs as compensation.
FAO No. 2859 and 2860 of 2010
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has submitted that Mahabir, respondent No. 2 got the vehicle registered by submitting
forged copy of ration card and tampered bills. According to him, on account of this, a case against Mahabir, respondent no. 2 was registered vide
FIR No. 45 of 2009 at Police Station Jind for an offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and section 7(13) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to him, in the wake of registration of this case, the registration certificate and route permit of the
vehicle had also been cancelled. According to him, the insurance policy was obtained by non-disclosure of this fact and the same has been a void
contract and has been avoided by the insurance company. Learned counsel for the insurer has cited before me two decisions, one of Hon''ble
Kerala High Court in George P. Varghese and Another Vs. G. Daniel and Others, and another of Hon''ble Bombay High Court in Parakkate
Shankaran Keshavan Vs. T.A. Sukumaran,
Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has submitted, on the other hand, that the accident took place on 13.8.2008 and as admitted by
Gurmit Singh [PW-2], the route permit and registration certificate of the vehicle were valid on 13.8.2008. According to him, till 13.8.2008, the
route permit or registration certificate had not been cancelled and no case was registered against him. He has further submitted that the insurer has
not been able to bring on record as to when the insurance policy was cancelled and when intimation was given to the insured. According to him,
the claimants are the third parties and in case of third parties, the insurance company is liable. The contract has been avoided qua the insured and
insured could not make any claim on the basis of insurance policy, but the third party could make claim and insurance company can be directed to
pay the amount of the award granting it liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
It is a case where the vehicle was insured even before the same was got registered. The insurance policy, therefore, was not obtained by non-
disclosure of material fact or by making a false representation. The alleged false representation was made at the time of making application for
registration of the vehicle. Still on the record, there is nothing to show that the allegations on which the case was registered have been proved. The
fact that the owner submitted forged copy of ration card and tampered bills is an allegation till this date. These are not the facts proved on the
record.
There is, moreover, no evidence on the record to prove that the insurer had avoided the contract and had informed the insured in that regard.
Taking into account all these facts, it has to be seen that the claim petitions here are by third parties and the insurance company is required to be
directed to pay the amount of the award to the third parties and its interest could be safe-guarded by giving it liberty to recover the said amount
from the owner of the vehicle. This is what has been precisely done by learned Tribunal and, therefore, I find no illegality in the said order.
In George P. Varghese''s case [supra], the insurance was obtained without disclosing that accident had already occurred. In Parakkate
Shankaran Keshavan''s case [supra] it has been laid down as a general principle of law that a party to a void contract cannot claim any relief from
the court on that basis. In the present case, the relief is sought by the third party and not a party to a void contract. Therefore, the decisions cited
by learned counsel for the insurer have no application to the facts of this case.
F.A.O. No. 6693 of 2010
In Murti Devi''s case, her husband Sukhbir Singh had been a retired JBT teacher. As has come on record in the statement of Gulshan Kumar
[PW-4] he was getting Rs. 6,637/- as monthly pension. It is strange enough but has come in the evidence that on his death his wife Murti Devi is
getting Rs. 6,356/- per month as family pension. So, the loss is of Rs. 281/- per month. However, the deceased was having agricultural land and
was raising crops therein. Although, the land has been left back to raise crops, yet the supervision of Sukhbir Singh of that land is gone and the
same amounts to loss to the claimants.
Mohinder Singh has been examined as PW-6 to tell the quantity of the crops sold by Sukhbir Singh in different years. The supervision of the
deceased of his land cannot be valued at an amount below the amount of Rs. 4,000/- which is earned by even an unskilled labourer. So, I take Rs.
4,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, Sukhbir Singh. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 281/- as lost on the front of pension, I find a sum of Rs.
4,281/- as the income of the deceased lost in his death. He is survived by his wife and three sons and, therefore, deduction of 1/4th is required to
be made from this amount to represent the expenses of the deceased on himself. The monthly dependency of the claimants upon the deceased was
Rs. 3,210/- which multiplied by 12 brought the annual dependency at Rs. 38,520/-. The deceased had been of the age of 64 years. As per the
decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the multiplier of 7
would be applicable to this case for assessing compensation. Multiplying the annual dependency with 7, I find Rs. 2,69,640/- as lost by the
claimants, Murti Devi and others in his death. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads, I assess a sum of
Rs. 2,89,640/- as compensation in favour of the claimants. Out of this amount, appellant No. 1, Murti Devi shall get Rs. 1.50 lakhs and the
remaining amount will be shared by the other claimants-appellants.
F.A.O. No. 770 of 2011
Coming to the case of Phoolpati, her case is also on similar footing with the difference that Ram Kishan [deceased] was not a pensioner. He
was also an agriculturist having 6 acres of land. The income of the deceased from the land would be taken to be the value of his supervision and
services to the land. It would be not more than Rs. 4,000/- per month. However, in the case in hand, there is only one claimant and, therefore, the
deduction in the name of expenses of the deceased on himself would be 1/2 [half] in this case. The monthly dependency of the claimant, Phoolpati,
therefore, comes to Rs. 2,000/- which multiplied with 12 brings the annual dependency at Rs. 24,000/-. Ram Kishan was 62 years of age. The
multiplier in this case in view of Smt. Sarla Verma''s case [supra] is of 7. Multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 24,000/- with 7, I find Smt.
Phoolpati, the claimant to have lost a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/-. Adding to it a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the conventional heads, I find a sum of Rs.
1,88,000/- to be the compensation payable to Smt. Phoolpati on the death of her husband Ram Kishan.
In view of my foregoing discussion, finding no merit in FAO No. 2859 and 2860 of 2010 filed by the insurer, I dismiss the same. FAO No.
6693 of 2010 filed by Murti Devi and others, the claimants is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 2,89,640/-. FAO
No. 770 of 2011 filed by Phoolpati is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,10,000/- to Rs. 1,88,000/- with other terms regarding rate
of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal remaining the same.