Munshi Ram vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimant against the award dated 20th January, 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which his petition u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for compensation in a sum of Rs. . 10,00,000/- on the death of his wife, Neelam in an accident arising out of the use of motorcycle bearing Registration No. PB-48C-0736 on 5th August, 2008, had been dismissed. The petitioner has made the following claim in his petition. On 5th August, 2008, Neelam (deceased) alongwith her son Harinder Singh and grandson was going to village Chaswal from Amloh on motorcycle bearing Registration No. PB-48-C-0736. It was driven by Harinder Singh. Neelam was sitting on the pillion of the motorcycle having her grandson between her and Harinder Singh. When they were ahead of Grain Market, Bhadson, Harinder Singh suddenly applied brakes to the motorcycle on account of which Neelam fell down. Her head banged against the road. Neelam was taken to Civil Hospital, Bhadson and was referred to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, from where she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. She died on 8th August, 2008. An entry about this accident was made in the daily diary of Police Station Bhadson at No. 29 on 6th August, 2008. Neelam was aged 54 years and she was the only female member in the family to manage the household. She was earning Rs. . 3,000/- per month and hence, compensation in a sum of Rs. . 10,00,000/- had been claimed.

On notice, the claim petition has been resisted by United India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 1. The claim is, however, admitted by respondent No. 2, Harinder Singh. Respondent No. 1 has claimed that the driver of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. It is also claimed that the claim petition is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act. It is added that the claim has been filed by the father of respondent No. 2 and they are in collusion with each other to get easy money from the Insurance Company. The other averments of the claimant are denied and the petition is prayed to be dismissed.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal.

Whether Neelam wife of Munshi Ram died in an accident which took place on 5th August, 2008 at about 8.30 a.m. in the area of Anaj Mandi, Bhadson Distt. Patiala due to the use of motor cycle No. PB-48-C-0736 driven by Harinder Singh ? OPP

To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP

Whether the driver of the motor cycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?

OPR

Relief.

Parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned Counsel representing them, learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimant has brought this appeal.

I have heard Mr. Arvind Kashyap, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Paul S. Saini, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1/Insurance Company and have gone through the record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to para No. 9 of the award, where learned Tribunal has mentioned as an admitted fact the ownership of Munshi Ram (PW1) of the motorcycle in question. According to him, the ownership of the motorcycle is with Harinder Singh, respondent No. 2 and not the claimant. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has fallen in error in noticing this fact as an admitted fact. According to him, this would make entire difference to the fate of the case. He has submitted that the insurance policy of the motorcycle has been a package policy and Harinder Singh, the owner/insured of the vehicle was driving it at the time of accident. He has submitted that the argument built by learned Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition that the legal representative of a person driving vehicle after borrowing it from the owner is not entitled to claim compensation u/s 163-A of the Act, is fallacious and, therefore, the claim petition has to be allowed.

Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has admitted the fact that the motorcycle bearing Registration No. PB-48-C-0736 has been insured in the name of Harinder Singh on the date of accident and the policy taken by Harinder Singh for this motorcycle has been a package policy under which pillion rider would be covered. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal that the legal representative of a person driving vehicle after borrowing it from the owner is not entitled to claim compensation u/s 163-A of the Act, is wrong and the dismissal of the claim petition for the said reason is not sustainable.

Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation, it is to be seen that the income of the deceased is claimed to be Rs. . 3,000/- per month. Even if, the deceased had been a housewife, her contribution to the family cannot be assessed below this amount. The-annual income of the deceased can therefore, be taken as Rs. . 36,000/-. 2/3rd of the same can be taken as dependency of the claimant under the Second Schedule appended to the Act and as the age of the deceased was 54 years at the time of her death, the multiplier of 11 is provided for working out the compensation in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The said amount comes to Rs. . 2,64,000/-. A sum of Rs. . 9,500/- has to be added to it under the aforesaid Second Schedule in the name of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. . 2,73,500/- as compensation on the death of Neelam. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the impugned award, the claim petition stands allowed, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. . 2,73,500/- to the claimant on the death of his wife Neelam. He shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization of the awarded money.