Manju Sahu and Others vs Gyani Singh Rajput and Others

N.K. Mody, J.—This order shall also govern the disposal of MA No. 16/2009, filed by the respondent No. 3. As in both the appeals the award under challenge is dated 24/10/2008 passed by MACT, Narsinghur, in claim case No. 77/07, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 2,47,120/-, was awarded present appeal has been filed. In the appeal filed by the appellant, the prayer is for enhancement of the compensation, while in the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3, the prayer is that respondent No. 3 be exonerated. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 28/09/2007, Shivkumar was going on his motor bike along with his wife and children, at that time road roller, which was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 and was being driven by respondent No. 1, rashly and negligently, dashed the motor bike of the deceased, with the result deceased sustained head injuries and passed away. It was alleged that deceased was Teacher and was earning Rs. 4,284/- per month. It was alleged that claim petition be allowed and adequate compensation be awarded.

The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on various grounds including on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 in violation of terms of the policy, therefore, claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,47,120/- as compensation, against which present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned tribunal assessed the income Rs. 2,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 12. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of learned tribunal to assess the income ~ Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the compensation be enhanced.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the award, so far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that since the offending vehicle was road roller and the respondent No. 1 was possessing driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle, therefore, learned tribunal was not justified in holding the respondent No. 3 liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 be allowed and the findings whereby respondent No. 3 has been held liable, be set aside.

From perusal of the record, it appears that Ex. P. 1, is the Last Pay Certificate, wherein salary paid to the deceased @ Rs. 4,284/-. The name of the bank is also mentioned in the certificate. The employee who is maintaining the account, was also examined. In the circumstances, there was no justification in holding that appellant foiled to prove that deceased was Teacher and was getting salary of Rs. 4,284/-. Thus, the appellants are entitled for the following amount:

In other words, in view of this, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 6,15,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 3,68,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant, which shall be opened by the appellant from where appellant can withdraw the amount as per his needs. However, on an application by the appellant this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant.

Undoubtedly the offending vehicle was road roller. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, deals with different types of license. Road roller is a different class of vehicle, for which separate license is necessary. Undoubtedly respondent No. 1 was possessing the license to drive Light Motor Vehicle, in the circumstances respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license. Since the deceased was a third party, therefore, instead of holding the respondent No. 3 liable, right of recovery ought have been given to the respondent No. 3. In view of this, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced.

So far as liability is concerned, keeping in view that the respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license, the respondent No. 3 shall pay and shall have a right to recover the same from respondents No. 1 and 2.

With the aforesaid modification both the appeals stand disposed of. Copy of the order be placed in the connected case.