AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi V. Malimath, J.—Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants in MVC Nos. 27/2005 and 28/2005, the insurer has filed MFA Nos. 31218/2009 and 31220/2009 respectively, questioning the liability to satisfy the award. MFA Crob No. 1066/2009 is filed by the claimant in MVC No. 28/2005, seeking enhancement of compensation.
The case of the claimants in both the claim petitions is that on 06.08.2005, they were going by walk to their village Kudagi. At about 6.30 p.m., a new three "wheeler vehicle with a temporary registration, came and dashed against them. They sustained grievous injuries. The claimant Adam filed MVC No. 27/2005 and the claimant Nabirasul filed MVC No. 28/2005 seeking compensation. Both the claim petitions were heard together and by a common order, the claimant in MVC No. 27/2005 was granted Rs. 87,600/- and the claimant in MVC No. 28/2005 was granted Rs. 1,38,000/- along with interest. The insurer was directed to satisfy the award. Questioning the liability hoisted on the insurer, the insurer has filed MFA No. 31218/2009 against the order passed in MVC No. 28/2005 and MFA No. 31220/2009 against the order passed in MVC No. 27/2005.
The case of the insurer is that the material on record so far as the claimant in MVC No. 27/2005 is concerned, the same would show that he was walking on the road. The same is not disputed by the insurer. On the question of liability in view of the material and evidence, the contention that the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award passed in MVC No. 27/2005 is rejected.
So far as the claimant in MVC No. 28/2005 is concerned, it is contended that the insurer is not liable for various reasons. First is that, in terms of the insurance policy-Ex. R1, the same is violated. The insurance policy is granted only for registration purposes. In terms of IMT. 41, there has been a violation. Since there is violation of terms of policy to the effect that the accident took place almost 50 kilometers away from the place of the dealer of the vehicle, the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award.
IMT. 41 is placed for consideration, which reads as follows:
"IMT. 41. MOTOR TRADE POLICY-CLASS ''F'' ROAD RISK ONLY
It is hereby declared and agreed that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary that in respect of any new vehicle and/or chassis bearing a Trade Certificate Number specified in the Schedule of the policy, the Geographical Area for the purpose of this Policy shall be as defined hereunder and not as stated in the Schedule hereto.
Subject otherwise to the terms conditions limitations and exceptions of this Policy.
*to insert ''80'' or ''120'' as opted for by insured arid premium paid accordingly."
In terms whereof, when the vehicle is insured for the purpose of registration only, the risk will be covered within a distance of 80 or 120 kilometers as opted for by the insured and premium paid accordingly. There is no material to show that such an option was exercised and 80 or 120 kilometers was inserted in the policy. Notwithstanding the same, the contention of the insurer is that accident took place around 50 kilometers from the dealership. Even if this contention is accepted, the minimum distance in terms of IMT. 41 is 80 kilometers. Therefore, the policy would cover all claimants that arise out of an accident arising out of the minimum distance of 80 kilometers. Hence, this contention fails.
The second contention is that the claimants were travelling as a passengers in the vehicle. That the evidence cannot be accepted. That the vehicle was not intended to carry passengers. Hence, the insurer is not liable.
I have examined the evidence in detail. Both the claimants have narrated very clearly in their claim petitions as well as in their evidence that they were walking on the road along with the other. Such evidence has not been seriously challenged by the insurer. The evidence has remained intact. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence. What is contended by the insurer is that, the complainant has stated that the claimants were the passengers in the vehicle, which met with an accident. However, the records do not disclose that the complainant was examined before the Court. In the face of the evidence, which has remained unchallenged on the one hand and the statement of the complainant who has not been examined before the Court, it would be appropriate to lean in favour of the unchallenged evidence of the claimants. Hence, the contention of the insurer that the claimants were passengers, therefore violating the terms of conditions of the policy cannot be accepted. Hence, both the grounds urged by the insurer fail.
MFA Crob No. 1066/2009 is filed by the claimant in MVC No. 28/2005 seeking enhancement of compensation. He was aged 30 years on the date of the accident. The Tribunal held the multiplier at 15. It is inappropriate. The correct multiplier would be ''16''. The income held is appropriate. Hence, the loss of future earning is worked out as follows:
Rs. 36,000/- x 16 x 20% = 1,15,200/-.
The grant of notional income and the amount awarded on the other heads are just and appropriate in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. They do not call for any enhancement. Consequently, the cross objection is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms by enhancing the compensation awarded towards loss of future earning to Rs. 1,15,200/-. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the accident till the date of payment which shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Consequently, MFA No. 31218/2009 and MFA No. 31220/2009 filed by the insurer are dismissed. MFA Crob No. 1066/2009 filed by the claimant is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.