Narain Pathak vs Keshwar Paswan and Others

S.N. Pathak, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.9.94 passed by 4th Additional District Judge-cum-M.V. Claims Tribunal in M.V. claim case No. 5/5 of 1989/1991.

The owner of the vehicle, in question, is the Appellant here.

The aforesaid case was filed alleging therein that on 4.2.89 Ganga Paswan aged about 30 years, who was working as manual labourer of the Appellant Narain Pathak, was being carried on a tractor bearing registration No. BPG 9901 loaded with kher. The tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by Prakash Kumar Mishra and he pressed the brake suddenly, as a result of which the tractor received a jerk throwing out the deceased Ganga Paswan, who died on account of this sudden fall from the tractor.

The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1000/- and calculated the final compensation amount at Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver was driving the vehicle, in question, on the date of occurrence without having valid driving licence. The owner and the driver both were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation. The interim compensation already paid or to be paid was ordered to be deducted from the total compensation amount of Rs. 1 lakh.

The Appellant''s lawyer addressed this Court assailing the judgment of the lower Court on the sole ground that the vehicle, in question, was insured and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. It was also submitted that the driver had a valid driving licence. But the Insurance Company adduced evidence in the lower Court and submitted its surveyer''s report (Ext B-1) as also report of the D.T.O., Darbhanga, (Ext.A-1/1 and A/2) in support of the fact the driving licence of the driver was forged. It was admitted by the driver that the original driving licence was lost. He also did not state that he had filed any FI.R. for the loss of the licence. It also transpires from the evidence of the driver and the owner that the original driving licence was issued from Darbhanga, on the basis of which new licence was issued from Samastipur. But there was a report from the D.T.I., Darbhanga, that original licence was forged or no licence was at all issued and so issue of new licence would also be of no consequence. So, as per the evidence, the driver had no valid licence when he caused the alleged accident. It was further apparent that the owner had entrusted his. vehicle to a person having no valid licence and, therefore, there was a clear breach of terms of the insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company was not at all liable to pay the compensation. In this connection, it was further submitted by the Appellant''s lawyer that papers from the D.T.I. Office were not called for and, therefore, any document in this connection filed by the Insurance Company was not reliable. In this connection, I am of the opinion that unless there was a prayer by the Appellant to call for the papers, the Court was not under any legal obligation to act on its own arid, moreover, there can be no presumption that the report of the D.T.O. was false or unfounded. So, I am further of the opinion that the Court which relied on the papers filed by the Insurance Company was not under any legal error.

So far the compensation amount is concerned, it was submitted by the Appellant''s lawyer that the deceased was not his labourer but it was not denied that the deceased was a labourer. The income of the deceased as assessed by the Court below was not excessive because minimum Govt. rate of daily wages in the concerned year was not below Rs. 30 or 35. The compensation amount calculated on that basis was, perhaps, lower than what the claimants would have been entitled to. Moreover, if the compensation would have been calculated on the basis of multiplier as enjoined under the provisions of M.V. Act, 1994, the compensation would have gone higher. Therefore, the Court was rather lenient in awarding the compensation amount and unburdening the owner from the higher amount.

I am of the opinion that there is no necessity to interfere with the compensation amount fixed by the tribunal.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Tribunal shall remain intact.