AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,
Alka Sarin, J",,,
This order shall dispose of the abovementioned two appeals bearing FAO No.5125 of 2014 preferred by the driver and owner and FAO No.3483 of,,,
2017 preferred by the claimant against the award dated 04.03.2014. The appeal by the driver and the owner has been filed on the ground that the,,,
Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated and the liability has been fastened on the driver and the owner while the claimant, dissatisfied with",,,
the compensation awarded , has preferred the appeal.",,,
The facts relevant to the present case are that on 02.01.2013 at about 2 o’clock the deceased Aftab and the driver, namely, Saheed were",,,
performing their respective duties on vehicle bearing registration No. HR -55-E-1101. The deceased Aftab, who was conductor of the said vehicle,",,,
was removing stones from the tyre near Village Atta in the area of Police Station Rozka-Meo when vehicle bearing registration No. HR-74-A-0245,",,,
which was being driven by respondent No.1 (in FAO No.3483 of 2017) in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck against the",,,
deceased Aftab, as a result of which Aftab received multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. An FIR was registered regarding the said",,,
accident. A claim petition was filed by the parents and siblings of Aftab. In the claim petition, it was stated that Aftab was working as a conductor and",,,
was earning Rs.10,000/ - per month and that all the claimants were dependent upon the deceased. It had further been stated that an amount of",,,
Rs.60,000/- had been spent on transportation of the dead body and last rites of the deceased.",,,
Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 (in FAO No.3483 of 2017) filed a written statement raising the preliminary objections regarding the",,,
maintainability, locus standi and concealment of material facts. On merits, the factum of the accident was denied. It was further asserted that the FIR",,,
was falsely registered against respondent No.1 (i n FAO No.3483 of 2017) on the statement of the complainant. Respondent No.3 (in FAO No.3483,,,
of 2017), i.e., the Insurance Company filed its written statement taking various preliminary objections and one of the objections raised was that the",,,
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the owner of the vehicle was guilty of breach of terms and,,,
conditions of the policy. On merits, the factum of the accident was denied.",,,
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence on the record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,92,000/- along with interest @ 7.5%",,,
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, to be paid only to the mother, i.e., appellant in FAO-3483-2017. The Insurance",,,
Company was exonerated. Aggrieved by the finding whereby the Insurance Company had been exonerated, the driver and the owner of the offending",,,
vehicle have preferred FAO No.5125 of 2014 and the claimant, dissatisfied with the amount awarded, has preferred FAO No.3483 of 2017.",,,
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.,,,
Firstly, dealing with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in FAO No.5125 of 2014, preferred by the driver and the owner",,,
qua exoneration of Insurance Company, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Insurance Company has been",,,
exonerated by the Tribunal only on the basis of a verification report, Ex.R1, regarding the driving licence held by respondent No.1 (in FAO No.3483 of",,,
2017) wherein it was stated that the licence was not found to have been issued at the serial number shown in the driving licence. Hence, the Tribunal",,,
has held that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of occurrence of the accident. It has been contended by the learned counsel,,,
for the appellants that mere production of the verification report, without the same having been proved in accordance with law, could not have been",,,
made the basis for exonerating the Insurance Company. He further contends that the Insurance Company has failed to establish that the driver was,,,
holding an invalid driving licence. In support of this contention, he has relied upon 2016(2) PLR 478â€"Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs.",,,
Vijay and others; 2017(2) PLR 759-National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Kanwaljit Kaur and others2; 001(2) RCR (Civil) 248 National",,,
Insurance Co. vs. Surjeet Kaur; and 1999 ACJ 1262-National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Santosh and others, which is a Division Bench judgment of",,,
this Court.,,,
Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated on the basis of",,,
the verification report, Ex.R1. However, he was unable to show any judgment contrary to the case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants.",,,
Though the verification report, Ex.R1, had been produced to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence",,,
on the date of the occurrence of the accident, however, the fact remains that no one from the Licensing Authority was examined to prove the said",,,
verification report. It is a settled proposition of law that by mere marking a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the requirement of proving,,,
the sam e. The Supreme Court in the case of Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1865,",,,
had considered a similar question and held that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of the document. In para-15 of the said,,,
judgment, it was held as under: -",,,
“15. The plaintiffs wanted to rely on Exs. A -12 and A-13, the day book and the ledger respectively. The plaintiffs did not prove these books.",,,
There is no reference to these books in the judgments. The mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. It is common,,,
place to say that the negative cannot be proved. The proof of the plaintiffs' books of account became important because the plaintiffs' accounts were,,,
impeached and falsified by the defendants' case of larger payments than those admitted by the plaintiffs. The irresistible inference arises that the,,,
plaintiffs' books would not have supported the plaintiffs.â€,,,
The same view has been reiterated in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the law laid down, this Court is",,,
of the considered opinion that the finding, whereby the Insurance Company has been exonerated, deserves to be set aside. A perusal of the evidence",,,
on record shows that the verification report, Ex.R1. was not proved on the record by producing any person from the Licensing Authority. That being",,,
so, the said verification could not have been relied upon.",,,
In view of the settled law, the finding recorded by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is, hence, set aside.",,,
Now, dealing with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal preferred by the claimant, i.e., FAO No.3483 of 2017, it",,,
has been contended that the deceased, at the time of the accident, was 21 years of age and that the Tribunal has not granted the compensation as per",,,
the law laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) Supreme Court Cases 121, National",,,
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) Supreme Court Cases 68 0and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.",,,
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130. It has further been contended that the Tribunal had failed to grant any",,,
compensation towards future prospects, conventional heads and parental consortium.",,,
Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that a just and proper compensation has been granted by the Tribunal and,",,,
hence, there is no sco pe for enhancement. It was further contended that there was a huge delay in filing of the present appeal and, therefore, on that",,,
ground alone the appeal ought not to be entertained.,,,
Sr.No.,Head,,Compensation Awarded
1.,Monthly income,â€"â€","Rs. 5,250/-
2.,Annual income,â€","Rs. 63,000/-
3.,"Annual dependency of
claimant(s) after 50%
deduction towards personal
expenses",â€"â€","Rs. 31,500/-
4.,"Annual dependency after
adding future prospects @
40%",â€"â€","Rs.  44,100/-
(31500+12600)
5.,Multiplier of 18,â€","Rs.  7,93,800/-
(44100x18)
6,Loss of estate,â€"â€","Rs.  15,000/-
8.,Filial consortium to mother,â€"â€","Rs.  40,000/-
,"Total compensation
Enhanced amount of
compensation:",â€","Rs. 8,63,800/-
,,â€"â€","Rs. 2,71,800/- (863800-
592000)