AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhawani Singh, C.J.—We propose to dispose of this group of six cases by common judgment since they arise out of the same accident and common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Eilaspur dated 30.10.1996. Cross-objections filed by the claimants in these appeals shall also stand disposed of by this common judgment.
Truck bearing the registration No. CPA 3929 carrying boulders turned turtle near Pipartaraj on Kota-Bilaspur Road on 18.1.1989 at 1.30 p.m. resulting in the death of Preetam, Arjun and Tijau Ram, permanent disablement of Kans Ram, Prahlad and Kunj Bihari, and injuries to Kartik Ram, Manohar and Sudama Ram. All these occupants in the truck were labourers. Ganpat Ram was driver of the truck while Sant Ram was registered owner thereof. The truck was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. between 9.1.1989 and 8.1.1990. Insurance policy existed in favour of Hiren and Company, being the registered owner thereof on the date of accident.
Legal heirs of Preetam, Arjun and Tijau Ram filed Claim Petition Nos. 21, 23 and 25 of 1996 alleging rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver. Similar is the grievance of Kans Ram, Kunj Bihari and Prahlad claiming compensation for permanent disablement and of Kartik Ram, Manohar and Sudama Ram claiming compensation for personal injuries sustained by them in this accident.
The defence of the Insurance Company is that it is not liable to pay the compensation since the policy of insurance was issued in favour of Hiren and Company and the vehicle was sold to Sant Ram about which no information of transfer on sale was given to it, result of which is that contract of insurance between Insurance Company and Hiren and Company came to an end. It is also stated that the driver did not possess valid driving licence on the date of accident nor he had valid permit, registration and fitness certificate. For these reasons, Insurance Company contends that the liability for payment of compensation could not be thrust on it. Apart from that, only six coolies could be carried in the vehicle as against nine carried by the vehicle in question.
Hiren and Company did not appear before the Claims Tribunal, therefore, Tribunal proceeded ex parte against it. Consolidated award in the nine cases arising out of the said accident was passed by the Tribunal. It found that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by the driver as a result of which three persons died, three persons suffered disablement and remaining three sustained injuries. The Tribunal found the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation after rejecting all the defences set up by the appellant. However, it was held liable to pay compensation only with respect to six claim cases arising out of deaths and permanent disablement while owner of the vehicle Sant Ram was held responsible to pay compensation in the remaining three cases of personal injuries. All these appeals are at the instance of Insurance Company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. The claimants have challenged the award by filing cross-objections.
Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the vehicle stood transferred to respondent Sant Ram without information to the Insurance Company, therefore, contract of insurance between the appellant and Hiren and Company ceased to exist and the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. It is also contended that the vehicle was carrying more than six coolies beyond the limit prescribed in the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation at all.
Learned Counsel for claimants has disputed the contentions so raised by Insurance Company. Learned Counsel submits that the appellant is responsible for payment of compensation even if the vehicle was transferred by Hiren and Company to respondent Sant Ram. This apart, on merits of the case, the contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants is that the Tribunal has not assessed the compensation correctly resulting in unjust payment of compensation. Further submission is that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be re-assessed and the liability be fixed on the Insurance Company with respect to all the claimants.
So far as the objection of learned Counsel for the appellant is concerned, it should not detain us for long in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court on a reference in these cases dated 14.10.1999. [Reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kansram and Others, Kunj Bihari and Others, Dashrath and Others, Prabhat and Others, Ku. Nirmala and Others, Leela Bai and Others and Dobdhe and Others, . In the Apex Court decisions in M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., and G. Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, , it is held that the insurance policy remained effective in respect of the third party risk even if there has been absence of application/intimation as stipulated u/s 103-A of the Act (corresponding to Section 157 of the new Act) except in respect of the transferee''s risks. Therefore, it is held that liability of Insurance Company for payment of compensation in these cases remains intact.
Another facet of the argument is liability with respect to labourers more than six in number carried by the vehicle. This contention is also covered by Apex Court decision in B.V. Nagaraju Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer, Hassan, , therefore, appellant cannot escape its responsibility on this aspect of the matter also.
After deciding the main questions, we turn to examine whether just compensation has been awarded to the claimants in these cases:
(a) MA Nos. 464, 466 and 467 of 1997:
In these cases, Preetam (24), Arjun (18) and Tijau Ram (25) died in the accident. Each of them was earning Rs. 20 per day. Dependency has been claimed at Rs. 15/- per day which comes to Rs. 450/- per month and annually Rs. 5,400/-. Proper multiplier in these cases should be 18. Thus, calculated, for the death of Preetam, claimants are entitled for Rs. 97,200/- (Rs. 450 x 12 x 18) and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, taking the amount of compensation to the total of Rs. 99,200/- (rupees ninety-nine thousand two hundred). For the death of Arjun, claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 97,200/- plus Rs. 2,000/- towards the funeral expenses taking the total to Rs. 99,200/-(rupees ninety-nine thousand two hundred) and for the death of Tijau Ram, claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 97,200/- plus Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling to Rs. 1,04,200/- (rupees one lakh four thousand two hundred). The compensation awarded will carry interest at the rates allowed by the Tribunal. In each of the three cases, the claimants shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand).
(b) M.A. No. 463 of 1997:
Kunj Bihari suffered fracture and dislocation of right shoulder resulting in permanent disablement to the extent of 40 per cent. He has been awarded compensation of Rs. 17,000/-. We think the award is on the lower side. It does not take into consideration the extent of injuries suffered by the claimant, pain and suffering undergone by him during the time he received medical treatment for about one year. It is, therefore, desirable that for disablement to the extent of 40 per cent, the claimant should be awarded Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenditure. We maintain the amount of Rs. 5,400/- paid by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings for the period the claimant was confined to bed. The total amount of compensation payable to the claimant Kunj Bihari comes to Rs. 50,400/- (rupees fifty thousand four hundred) carrying interest at the rates allowed by the Tribunal with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
(c) M.A. No. 465 of 1997:
We have examined the matter with respect to assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal in the context of injuries suffered by the claimant. He had lost five teeth, though claimant had claimed loss of six teeth. We find that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 57,000/- is quite just calling for no interference by the Court Insurance Company should not have filed appeal in this case. We, therefore, award costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the claimant.
(d) M.A. No. 462 of1997:
Disablement of the claimant Kans Ram in this case is to the extent of 75 per cent. His two fingers were amputated completely while the third was amputated partially. We feel the award of Rs. 42,000/- towards compensation in this case deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs. 10,000/- over and above the amount allowed by the Tribunal taking the amount of compensation to the total of Rs. 52,000/- (rupees fifty-two thousand).
Consequently, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- in each case and the cross-objections filed by the claimants are allowed to the extent above stated except in M.A. No. 465 of 1997.