Dilip Gajendra vs Sandeep Chandrakar

Sachin Singh Rajput, J

Since two appeals are arising out of the award dated 07.12.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahsamund, CG in Claim Case No. H-04/2019, they are being heard together and decided by this common order.

MAC No. 190 of 2021 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation whereas MAC No. 467 of 2021 is filed by the owner of the offending vehicles against the exoneration of insurance company from payment of compensation.

Facts for deciding the appeals are that the name of the deceased is Harsh Gajendra who was aged about 13 years and met with an accident by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles A.C.E. Hydrologic Crain bearing registration No. CG 06 – E/9811 driven by the driver, owned by the owner and insured with the insurance company. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased died on account of the said accident and a compensation of Rs. 30,25,000/- was claimed by the claimants by filing an application under Section 166 of MV Act.

The claim application was resisted by the driver, owner and the insurance company of the offending vehicle on various ground including the insurance company taking a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license.

By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,11,000/- relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC

However, the insurance company was exonerated from payment of compensation on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driver license and he was holding a license to drive only light motor vehicle whereas the unladen wait of the offending vehicle 9800 therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable.

Mr. Gurudev I. Saran, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side which require suitable enhancement.

Ms. Shaleeni Jangdhe, learned counsel for the owner submits that exoneration of insurance company is bad in law.

Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the insurance company supports the submission of Mr. Saran. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, opposes the submission and submits that just compensation has been passed and exoneration is correct.

The first question as to whether the exoneration of the insurance company is bad in law. The learned Tribunal found as meticulous examination on record found that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding the license have drive only light motor vehicle and held that the unladen wait of the offending vehicle was 9800 therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal does not appears to be perverse or contrary to the record, therefore, the appeal of the insurance company fails and is hereby dismissed.

Now, the next question as to whether just compensation. Admittedly, the deceased was 13 years of age, naturally he was not a learning member. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and anr. v. Lala and ors., (2014) 1 SCC 244. The amount of Rs. 5,11,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be meagre amount. The appeal of the claimants also fails and is hereby dismissed.