National Insurance Company Limited vs Praba Sini Sethi And Others

Sanjeev Kumar, J

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company") is against the award dated 07.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in file No.308/Claim titled Praba Sini Sethi and others v. Ravi Kumar and others.

The impugned award has been assailed primarily on two counts:-

i) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is slightly on the higher side. It is contended that the deceased at the time of accident was a mason and, therefore, in the absence of any adequate proof of income, the Tribunal was not correct in taking his income as Rs 4500/- per month.

ii) The driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

It is submitted that as the offending vehicle was carrying two pillion riders in addition to the driver while it had only permissible capacity of two including the person driving the scooter. It is, thus, submitted that that for violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Insurance Company is absolved of its liability to indemnify the insured.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the award does not suffer from any material illegality or error of fact or law and therefore, does not call for any interference in this appeal.

Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the higher side, it is seen that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased, who was stated to be a mason at Rs 4,500/- per month, which, by no stretch of reasoning, can be held to be excessive or on the higher side. I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of concrete proof of income, the Tribunal should not have taken the income as Rs 4500/- per month.

Regarding contention of the learned for the appellant that for violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder by carrying extra passenger on the scooter, the appellant-Insurance Company is absolved of its liability, in that, in such situation the pillion rider is presumed to have contributed in the accident. Law in this regard is well settled that in case of any violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the violator can be adequately punished by way of penalty under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder but that in itself does not provide any ground to the Insurance Company to wriggle out of its liability to indemnify the insured, unless it is shown by the Insurance Company that the insured was guilty of violating any substantial terms of the insurance policy. There is nothing on record to indicate any such violation.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly, dismissed.