AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge a judgment dated 23.11.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (MAC) No.211 of 2015.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
One Gautam Laskar was travelling on his motorcycle on 16.06.2015 when his vehicle collided with an incoming truck near East Champamura causing fatal injuries to the motorcyclist. A claim petition was filed by his widow and two minor children claiming compensation of Rs.31,31,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the truck involved in the accident. The deceased was aged 29 years on the date of accident. He was working as a skilled labourer in one Ferry cement company and as per the claimants earning Rs.9,000/- per month.
[3] The Claims Tribunal believed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and deducted 1/3rd by way of his personal expenditure. The Court granted 50% increase for future income and applied a multiplier of 17 in order to work out the dependency benefits for the claimants at Rs.18,36,000/-. To this, the Tribunal added Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. A total compensation of Rs.19,06,000/- was thus awarded to the claimants. The Claims Tribunal held all the opponents jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation. This judgment the insurance company has challenged in this appeal.
[4] Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal erred in believing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month without any evidence on record. He further submitted that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive a commercial vehicle. The liability of the insurance company, therefore, should have been absolved. Thus, this appeal is pressed on the grounds of quantum as well as the liability of the insurance company.
[5] The material on record would show that the age of the deceased was established through the Aadhar card produced on record. His age is thus properly ascertained. The claimants had examined one Shri Susanta Karmakar, P.W.2, who deposed that the deceased was a skilled labourer working with Ferry cement work and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Income certificate was produced at Exbt.8. Thus, there was reliable evidence of the employment and income of the deceased. The Tribunal, thus, committed no error in believing his income at Rs.9,000/- per month. Rest of the calculations for computation of compensation were according to the Supreme Court judgments in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. No modification is needed under this head.
[6] Coming to the question of the liability of the insurance company, only ground raised before me is that the driver did not have a valid licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Counsel for the insurance company does not dispute that the driver had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle. His only argument was that this licence was not valid for transport vehicle. However, since the driver had a valid licence to drive the vehicle of the category which he was driving and which had been involved in the accident, the insurance company cannot be absolved from his liability to cover the risk.
[7] In the result, I find no merits in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
[8] Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.