AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are directed against the judgment and award
dated 16.1.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bikaner (''the Tribunal''), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.1,54,800/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of application i.e. 24.4.1997.
The application for compensation was filed by the claimants
- husband and minor children of Smt. Saroj with the averments
that Smt. Saroj was aged 35 years and was involved in tailoring
business, she used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month and used to
contribute Rs.1,500/- to the family.
On 5.2.1997, when she was riding on a bicycle alongwith her
brother - Lun Singh, the offending vehicle a bus being driven by
Manohar Singh rashly and negligently, struck the cycle and ran
over Smt. Saroj resulting in her death on the spot, based on the
said submissions, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune
of Rs.6,45,000/-.
Though appearance was made by driver and owner of
vehicle, no reply was filed.
The Insurance Company filed its reply and contested the
application. It was, inter alia, claimed that the accident occurred
on account of negligence of Lun Singh, who was driving the bicycle
rashly. The averments pertaining to the income of the deceased
were also contested and the liability was denied on account of
violation of policy condition alleging that the driver was not in
possession of a valid driving licence.
The Tribunal framed four issues, on behalf of the claimants,
three witnesses were examined and certain documents were
exhibited, on behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was
examined and one report was produced.
After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving by driver of the bus. While deciding the quantum of
compensation, the income of the deceased was assessed at
Rs.1,000/- per month, deducting Rs.300/- towards personal
expenses and after applying multiplier of 17, a compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,42,800 was awarded for loss of income, towards
loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- was awarded to husband and
Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses was awarded and in all a
sum of Rs.1,54,800/- was awarded.
While deciding the issue pertaining to the liability of the
Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as
the vehicle in question was a ''medium passenger vehicle'' and the
driver was in possession of driving licence to drive ''heavy goods
vehicle'', the driver was not in possession of requisite driving
licence and exonerated the Insurance Company.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-
claimants that the Tribunal committed error in awarding meager
compensation. It was submitted that from the material available
on record, it was proved that the deceased used to earn
Rs.2,000/- per month, however for no reason, the Tribunal has
taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month.
Further submissions were made that the deduction of
personal expenses made is excessive and that the amount
awarded towards loss of consortium is meager and that the
Tribunal has not awarded any amount to the children for loss of
love & affection and, therefore, the award deserves modification.
Further submissions were made that the Tribunal was not
justified in exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that
the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence and,
therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside to the
said extent.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - owner also
contested the finding of the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that
the driver was in possession of requisite driving licence and,
therefore, the exoneration of the Insurance Company was not
justified.
Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jamna Devi & Ors .: 2004(3) WLC
(Raj.) 177.
Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and the same does
not call for any interference. Further submissions were made that
the finding of the Tribunal pertaining to the driver being not in
possession of requisite driving licence also does not call for any
interference, inasmuch as, the vehicle admittedly was a
''passenger vehicle'' and the driver was in possession of driving
licence to drive ''goods vehicle'' only and, therefore, in absence of
requisite driving licence, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the
application qua the Insurance Company, which determination does
not call for any interference.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a bare
look at the assessment made by the Tribunal reveals that the
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/-
per month based on the statement of her husband - Jiwan Singh
that the deceased used to sew 1-2 suits per day and used to
charge Rs.40/- per suit. Based on the said assertion, the Tribunal
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month by
holding that the deceased used to sew one suit per day and after
taking into consideration the probability of her not being able to
get work on all the 30 days, the income was assessed at
Rs.1,000/- per month. The said assessment by the Tribunal about
the income appears to be just and proper and the same does not
call for any interference. However, the Tribunal has assessed the
personal expenses at Rs.300/- per month, which in view of the
judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr . (2009) 6 SCC 121 is
excessive as there are four dependents on the deceased and,
therefore, the deduction can''t be more than 1/4th. The multiplier
adopted by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.
So far as the amount awarded towards loss of consortium is
concerned, the same is on the lower side and deserves to be
enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any
amount towards loss of love & affection to the children, to which
they are entitled at Rs.10,000/- each. The amount awarded
towards funeral expenses does not call for any interference.
In view thereof, the claimants would be entitled to
compensation of Rs.750 x 12 = 9000 x 17 = 1,53,000 + 25,000 +
30,000 + 2000 = Rs.2,10,000/-.
Coming to the issue of liability of the Insurance Company, a
bare look at the registration certificate of the vehicle indicates that
the class of vehicle indicated is ''heavy motor vehicle'', the vehicle
has been described as a Shaktimaan Truck, however, the Regional
Transport Authority by its endorsement dated 7.4.1999 has
converted the same from a truck body to a passenger vehicle and
the sitting capacity has been enhanced from 6 to 31. The
insurance policy (Ex./12) also indicates the passenger carrying
capacity at 31 and has described the vehicle as a bus.
A look at the driving licence of the driver (Ex./13) indicates
that the same was initially issued on 29.6.1989 authorizing him to
drive ''heavy motor vehicle'' and a further endorsement was made as ''for HGV only'' the said licence was thereafter renewed from
time to time and lastly on 18.1.997 till 17.1.2000.
It would be noticed that under Section 10 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (''the Act'') was amended w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and
the various types of transport vehicle were deleted and only one
category of transport vehicle as Section 10(2)(e) was inserted.
The said category of transport vehicle as laid down by Hon''ble
Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors .: Civil Appeal No.5826/2011, decided on
3.7.2017 includes the ''medium passenger vehicle'', ''medium goods
vehicle'', ''heavy passenger vehicle'' and ''heavy goods vehicle''.
As already noticed hereinbefore, the driving licence of the
driver was renewed lastly on 18.1.1997 and the accident took
place on 5.2.1997 and in those circumstances, it would be deemed
that on the date, when the renewal took place in the year 1997,
the same pertained to authorizing the driver to drive transport
vehicle as envisaged under Section 10(2)(e) of the Act, which
includes all the four types of vehicle as already noticed
hereinbefore, i.e. ''medium passenger vehicle'', ''medium goods
vehicle'', ''heavy passenger vehicle'' and ''heavy goods vehicle''.
The Tribunal on account of the weight of the vehicle indicated
in the registration certificate, categorized the same as ''medium
passenger vehicle'' and found that as the driver was having licence
to drive ''heavy goods vehicle'', he was not in possession of a valid
driving licence. The said finding in view of the above discussion
pertaining to the categorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, held that the driver was in
possession of requisite driving licence to drive ''heavy goods
vehicle'' and, therefore, the exoneration of the Insurance
Company, also cannot be sustained.
In view of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the
claimants as well as the owner are allowed. The award impugned
dated 16.1.1999 is modified to the extent that the claimants
would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- instead of
1,54,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced amount
of compensation i.e. Rs.55,200/- the claimants are entitled to
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e.
24.4.1997 till the date of actual payment.
The finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 is set
aside and it is held that alongwith the driver and owner of the
vehicle, the Insurance Company would be jointly and severally
liable for making payment of the amount of compensation. The
enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest be paid to
Jiwan Singh to the extent of 70% and to the three children i.e.
Rajendra Singh, Laxman Singh and Sharvan Singh to the extent of
10% each.
The Insurance Company would make payment of the amount
of compensation alongwith interest within a period of six weeks
from the date of this judgment and would refund the amount
deposited by the appellant - owner and/or paid to the claimants.