Laxmibai and Others vs Kanhaiyalal (Deceased through LR) and Another

This is an appeal filed by the claimants u/s 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act against an award dated 7.8.2002 passed by VIIIth Addl. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 250/2000. By impugned award the learned Member of the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 2,16,000 for the death of one Omprakash who died on 1.1.2000 in vehicle accident. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether claimant i.e., appellant is entitled for more compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal and if so, to what extent?

Heard Mr. M. Jain, learned Counsel for appellants and Mr. S.V. Dandwate learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and dismiss the cross-objection filed by respondent No. 2, Insurance Company dated 13.8.2004.

It is not in dispute that the claim petition was filed by the claimant u/s 163A of the Act. It being a well settled principle of law based on several judicial interpretations made by the Supreme Court and being consistently followed by the High Courts it is not necessary to plead and prove the issue of negligence of persons involved in the accident. In this view of the matter and keeping in view this settled principle it is difficult to entertain and allow the cross-objection filed by Insurance Company/respondent No. 2 and set aside the award passed against them. In other words in view of legal position emerging out of the case which is taken note of supra, this Court cannot possibly hold that no liability could have been fastened upon the Insurance Company arising out of the accident in question.

It is a case of death where Omprakash while driving a vehicle in question met with an accident. The fact that accident occurred and with vehicle in operation is not in dispute. Since the issue of negligence is de hors the principles underlined in Section 163A ibid, the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be avoided. The vehicle in question was insured with the company on the date of accident, renders the Insurance Company liable to suffer an award.

So far as determination of compensation is concerned, the same does not call for any interference. As taken note of supra, the total compensation awarded to the claimant is Rs. 2,16,000. The deceased was aged 42 years. His earning was assessed at Rs. 1,800 after deducting 1/3rd the compensation has been worked out. It is in our opinion proper adequate and reasonable calling no further upwardness. It is much more so when there is no evidence to support any increase.

The only area where we can award some compensation is towards conventional heads, funeral expenses, loss of love and affection etc., because the Tribunal did not award any thing under any of these heads. The claimants are entitled to get compensation under these heads being a statutory one. We, therefore, consider it proper to award Rs. 25,000 in lump sum compensation under this head.

Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent that appellants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 25,000 over and above what is awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. As observed supra, the cross-objection filed by respondent No. 2 fails and is dismissed.

Counsel fees Rs. 1,500, if certified.