AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Garg, J.—This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO Nos. 2229 and 2407 of 2012 which have arisen out of one common award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tarn Taran in MACT Case No. 14/2011 of 2009 arising out of the same accident.
Briefly stated, the claimants sought compensation u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of death of one Balraj Singh, who died due to multiple grievous injuries caused in a motor vehicular accident due to the use of the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No. 6 and owned by respondent No. 5.
The offending vehicle i.e. PB-02-AZ-4150 was duly insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited i.e. appellant in FAO No. 2229 of 2012.
Both the claim petitions were contested by the driver as well as the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle in the written statement admitted that Balraj Singh and Balwinder Singh received multiple grievous injuries due to the use of the offending vehicle in the accident in question. However, in the written statement filed on behalf of the Insurance company, it was submitted that no accident was ever caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, as alleged and the amount of compensation claimed was exaggerated. Thus, denying the averments of the claim petitions, dismissal of the same was sought.
Since use of the offending vehicle was admitted in the accident causing grievous injuries to Balraj Singh and Balwinder Singh, it was held that the death of Balraj Singh occurred in a roadside accident which was caused due to the fact that the offending vehicle got punctured and then struck against the motorcycle on which deceased was riding.
While determining the compensation payable to the claimants, it was found that respondents No. 1 to 4 in FAO No. 2229 of 2012 being widow, minor sons and mother of the deceased, were the legal heirs. It was further found by the Tribunal that deceased Balraj Singh was earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month as established on record on the basis of evidence proved by the claimants which remained unrebutted and thereafter, held the annual dependency of the claimants at Rs. 27,000/- after applying a cut of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter, applied a multiplier of 15 keeping in view the age of the deceased as 37/38 years and determining the compensation at Rs. 4,05,000/- further granting a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium and further a sum of Rs. 5000/- as funeral expenses.
The Tribunal further found that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company vide Ex. R-1 and thus, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. As a result of the aforesaid findings, claim petition u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed with costs awarding compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- in favour of claimant-respondents No. 1 to 4 in FAO No. 2229 of 2012.
The insurance company has filed the instant appeal i.e. FAO no. 2229 of 2012 challenging the impugned award submitting that admittedly, the deceased was driving a motorcycle and he died due to the use of the said vehicle only whereas the claim petition against the appellant as well as owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle i.e. Car No. PB-02-AZ-4150 has been filed. Since the claimants were required to file claim against the owner and insurer of the said motor cycle which was being driven by the deceased, the present petition filed on behalf of the claimants against the appellant as well as respondents No. 5 and 6 is not maintainable and thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
The claimants have also filed the appeal i.e. FAO No. 2407 of 2012 seeking enhancement in the compensation granted to them.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.
It may be noticed that owner and driver of the offending vehicle have admitted the use of the offending vehicle in the accident causing death of Balraj Singh. The arguments, as raised, before this Court to the effect that Balraj Singh received multiple grievous injuries only due to the use of the motorcycle which he was riding, is without any basis as such facts are neither pleaded nor proved.
Not only this, even no such argument was raised before the Tribunal. Not only this, it is well settled that in a petition filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation against owner/driver/insurer of any of the vehicles used in the accident, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Meena Kumari and Others,
In view thereof, the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected.
At this stage, it may be noticed that counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal should have applied a cut of 1/4th while determining the annual dependency of the deceased instead of a cut of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses keeping in view the number of claimants and has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . However, the guidelines as provided by Hon''ble the Supreme Court cannot be applied in a strait jacket formula and this Court is of the opinion that compensation provided to them need not to be interfered with.
No other argument has been raised.
Thus, both the appeals are dismissed being without any merit.