AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 1.3.2007 whereby it awarded an amount of Rs. 7,37,000/- in favour of the claimants and further held the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount.
At the outset, it may be stated that in the present case the Insurance Company had filed an application u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking permission to contest the claim on all grounds, which application was allowed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, in this appeal the Insurance Company is entitled to challenge the award on all grounds.
The undisputed facts are that Bus No. HP-26-0676 which was going from Reckong Peo to Bari fell into the river Satluj near Ralli on 15.6.2004. Due to this accident the passengers got washed away into the river. The claimants, who are the widow, minor children and parents of late Shri Gian Singh, filed a petition claiming compensation on the ground that he was one of the passengers travelling in the bus. In the petition, it was claimed that the deceased was a tailor having his own shop and earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month.
The claim petition was contested on various grounds. As far as the owner is concerned the challenge was only on the ground that compensation claimed is highly excessive and that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect. Both the Respondents denied the allegations made by the claimants but in the written statement there was no specific denial to the allegations made in the claim petition that the deceased was travelling in the bus and had boarded the bus at Reckong Peo to Bari. The allegations were denied in general terms and it was prayed that the claimants be put to strict proof thereof. The learned trial Court allowed the claim petition hence this appeal.
Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle and he also claims that the compensation awarded is highly excessive.
P.W. 1 Narpuri, wife of the deceased Gian Singh states that her brother Vidya Chand informed her on phone that her husband was sitting in the bus No. HP-25-0676, which fell into the river. The accident took place on 15.6.2004 but the body of Gian Singh was only found on 6.7.2004 at Nathpa Dam. She denied the suggestion put to her that her husband did not board the bus. Vidya Chand, appeared as P.W. 2 and according to him he used to work alongwith deceased in the tailoring shop. He also states that they both boarded the ill fated bus on 15.6.2004 but he (witness) got down at Shong-thong whereas deceased Gian Singh stayed in the bus as he had to travel further. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are the sisters of the deceased. P.W. 4, one of the sisters of the deceased has stated that she had seen the deceased when he boarded the ill fated bus. She also stated that Vidya Chand was also travelling in the same bus. She has not been cross-examined by the owner of the bus and there is no effective cross-examination even by the Insurance Company with regard to the fact as to whether the deceased was travelling in the bus or not. Though the Insurance Company took permission to contest the claim on all grounds but it did not lead any evidence in this regard. There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the deceased died in the bus accident since two persons P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 clearly stated that the deceased was travelling in the bus in question.
Another important factor is that in the F.I.R in question it was recorded that during the course of investigation on 26.6.2004 it was found that Gian Singh deceased was also travelling in the bus. This fact was recorded much prior to the recovery of the body of Gian Singh. It is, therefore, apparent that the case set up by the claimants appears to be true and the findings of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was travelling in the bus cannot be said to be wrong.
As far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken the income at Rs. 6,000/- per month, deducted Rs. 2,000/- for personal expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 15. The award is absolutely just and reasonable and calls for no interference in the appeal. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected.