AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta (‘the
Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,95,201/- alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application
i.e. 26.07.2017 to the claimants.
Application for compensation was filed by the claimants â€" wife, children and father of deceased Ramprasad inter-alia with the averments that
Ramprasad alongwith Manohar, his son was travelling on motor-cycle on 05.05.2017 when the offending pickup being driven rashly and negligently
struck the motor-cycle, resulting in grievous injuries to Ramprasad, to which he succumbed.
The compensation to the tune of Rs.1,04,00,000/- was sought.Â
Application was contested by non-claimant No.1 disputing that the accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent driving.
The Insurance company filed its reply and alleged that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the motor-cycle, the driver of
the pick-up was not in possession of a valid driving licence.
Another objection was raised by the Insurance Company by amending its reply that as the policy was obtained by suppression of material facts, claim
was liable to be rejected.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 15 documents
were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company one witness was examined and 02 documents were exhibited.
After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of pick-
up.
While considering the issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company, the objection about suppression was considered and the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that from the oral statement and documents submitted by the Insurance Company, it was not proved that the Insurance Company
had undertaken any inquiry pertaining to the genuineness of the earlier policy as no report in this regard was produced and mere oral statement in this
regard could not be accepted and consequently, held the appellant â€" Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation.
While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as a semi-skilled workman with minimum wages at
Rs.5,642/- per month and applying the principles in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.: AIR 2017 SC 5157 andÂ
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 applied the future prospects, multiplier and deduction and awarded a
sum of Rs.8,95,201/-.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the fact pertaining to the validity
of the insurance policy was not proved by the appellant Insurance Company. It was submitted that the specific statements in this regard were made
by the Insurance Company indicating that the previous policy, which forms the basis for issuing of the policy to the owner pertaining to the vehicle in
question was a forged policy and once the fundamental facts pertaining to issuance of policy are found to be false, the Insurance Company could not
be held liable for payment of compensation as the fraud vitiates the contract between the parties.
Further submissions have been made that a perusal of the age of the dependents indicates that there were two major sons of the deceased and
therefore, the deduction by the Tribunal of 1/4th amount towards personal expenses was on the lower side.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record.
The case of the appellant was that the previous policy, which was produced by the owner of the vehicle for getting the cover note / policy for the
period in question issued by the appellant â€" Insurance Company was a forged document. On being asked, counsel for the appellant submitted that
the impact of the earlier policy being forged resulted in the owner getting a higher no claim bonus. It is apparent that at the time of issuing the cover
note / policy, the Insurance Company did not undertake the requisite exercise of authenticating the previous policy. Once the claim arose on account
of the accident, it chose to enquire as to whether the policy was correctly issued. Such an exercise was only by way of an after thought and cannot
absolve the Insurance Company from its liability.
Further, the implication of the allegation, as submitted by the counsel is only on the amount of premium, which aspect by itself cannot vitiate the policy.
Besides the above, the Tribunal has specifically observed that except for the oral statements on behalf of the appellant â€" Insurance Company
pertaining to the earlier policy being forged, no material was produced to substantiate the said allegation. The said finding of the Tribunal appears to be
justified in the circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, the appellant â€" Insurance Company could not have on its own, come to the conclusion that
the policy was forged and if any inquiry in this regard was undertaken with the other Insurance Company, the material should have been produced
before the Tribunal. On account of failure of the appellant â€" Insurance Company in producing the material to substantiate the allegation, the Tribunal
was fully justified in rejecting the plea raised by the appellant â€" Insurance Company in this regard.
So far as the low deduction at 1/4th for personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it appears that no objection regarding the claimants being not
dependents on the deceased was raised before the Tribunal and even in the present memo of appeal no such aspect has been raised and as such there
is no substance in the said ground as well.
In view of the above fact situation, no case for interference in the impugned award is made out. There is no substance in the appeal and the same is,
therefore dismissed.