AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per) These three connected appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 23.02.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in MAC Case No. 38 of 2004, Smt. Sateshwari Devi and others v. Shiv Dayal Singh Rawat and others, whereby compensation of ₹3,98,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment till actual payment was awarded in favour of the claimants. A.O. No. 141 of 2012 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, A.O. No. 264 of 2012 has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited challenging its liability and the quantum of compensation, while A.O. No. 438 of 2012 has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle, principally assailing the recovery rights granted in favour of the Insurance Company. Since all three appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, they are being decided by this common judgment.
The brief facts of the case are that on 22.06.2003, deceased Dayal Singh was travelling in Bus No. U.P.-02-C-2021, owned by respondent Shiv Dayal Singh Rawat and being driven by respondent Ramesh Chandra. At about 3:00 p.m., near village Tolluie, District Pauri Garhwal, the driver of the bus allegedly drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and applied sudden brakes, due to which the door of the bus opened and Dayal Singh fell out of the vehicle. He was run over by the rear wheel of the bus and sustained fatal injuries, resulting in his death at the spot. The claimants, being the wife and children of the deceased, thereafter instituted MAC Case No. 38 of 2004 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal, claiming compensation of ₹12,50,000/-. The learned Tribunal, by judgment and award dated 23.02.2012, awarded a sum of ₹3,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, while granting the Insurance Company the right to recover the amount from the owner on account of the breach relating to the driving licence. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants, the Insurance Company and the owner have preferred the present three connected appeals.
The insurance company and owner appeared and filed separate written statements. Owner, in substance denied the accident. He further submitted that bus was insured with New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and on the date of accident, it’s driver possessed valid and effective driving licence and the bus was on road with valid documents.
The insurance company also denied the accident and put the claimants on strict proof. It also pleaded in their written statement that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license and bus was on road against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The papers of bus were also not valid, and that the bus was overloaded as well. Both owner and the insurance company on these averments, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
Driver was proceeded ex-parte as he did not appeared in claim petition before learned Tribunal.
The claimants pleaded that the deceased was a skilled raj mistri, earning ₹8,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month, and that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate PW-1's testimony regarding his occupation and income. They contended that the monthly income of ₹3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal was inadequate in view of the prevailing wages and rising prices. They also challenged the conditional award of interest, seeking interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, and accordingly sought enhancement of compensation.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:
I Whether the deceased Dayal Singh died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident dated 22.06.2003 at about 3:00 p.m. near village Tolluie, on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. U.P.-02-C-2021 by its driver?
II Whether Bus No. U.P.-02-C-2021 was insured on the date of the accident?
III Whether all the papers/documents of the said vehicle were valid on the date of the accident?
IV Whether the driver of the said vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident?
V To what amount of compensation is the claimants entitled, and from whom?
While deciding issue No. 1 the learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence of the claimants’ witnesses, particularly the testimony of PW-1 Surendra Singh, found that on 22.06.2003, at about 3:00 p.m., the deceased Dayal Singh was travelling in Bus No. U.P.-02-C-2021 and that the driver of the said bus was driving it rashly and negligently. The driver suddenly applied brakes, as a result whereof the door of the bus opened and the deceased fell on the road from his seat and sustained serious injuries, resulting in his death at the spot. The Tribunal noted that although no first information report or post-mortem report was available, the oral evidence on record was sufficient to establish the occurrence and the manner of the accident. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants.
While deciding issue Nos. 2 and 3 the learned Tribunal considered these issues together as they related to the insurance of the offending vehicle and the validity of its documents. On the basis of the insurance policy and registration certificate produced on record, the Tribunal found that Bus No. U.P.-02-C-2021 was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited on the date of the accident and that the vehicle was duly registered. The Tribunal, therefore, decided Issue Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the claimants.
While deciding issue No. 4 As regards the validity of the driving licence, the learned Tribunal found that no documentary or oral evidence was produced by the owner or the driver to establish that the driver, Ramesh Chandra, possessed a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The driver had not appeared before the Tribunal and the owner also failed to produce any such licence. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and decided Issue No. 4 against the owner.
While deciding Issue No. 5, on the question of compensation, the learned Tribunal found the age of the deceased to be 43 years and, in the absence of reliable documentary evidence regarding his actual income, assessed his monthly income at ₹3,000/-, i.e. ₹36,000/-per annum. Considering the number of dependants, the Tribunal deducted one-fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased and assessed the annual dependency at ₹27,000/-. Applying a multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹3,78,000/-. In addition thereto, amounts of ₹10,000/- towards loss of consortium, ₹5,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹5,000/- towards loss of estate were awarded, making the total compensation ₹3,98,000/-. The Tribunal accordingly held the claimants entitled to the said amount and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, with the right to recover the amount from the owner on account of the breach relating to the driving licence.
Learned counsel appearing for the claimants, in A.O. No. 141 of 2012, submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded grossly inadequate compensation by assessing the income of the deceased at only ₹3,000/-per month, despite the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was working as a skilled raj mistri and was earning about ₹8,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the occupation and earning capacity of the deceased and also failed to take into account the prevailing increase in the cost of living. It was further contended that the compensation was required to be reassessed by applying the appropriate multiplier and that the direction regarding interest, whereby interest was made payable only from the date of the award subject to the conditions mentioned therein, was also erroneous. On these grounds, enhancement of the compensation was sought.
Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, in A.O. No. 264 of 2012, submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record. It was contended that the very occurrence of the accident was doubtful, as no report was lodged regarding the alleged accident and no post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted. It was further submitted that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company and granting recovery rights against the owner, despite there being no satisfactory evidence establishing the alleged breach of the policy conditions. It was also contended that the driver was not proved to have been duly licensed and that the owner/driver had failed to produce the relevant documents. Learned counsel further challenged the quantum of compensation, particularly the age of the deceased and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, submitting that the family register disclosed the age of the deceased as 55 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 14 could not have been applied. The award was accordingly sought to be set aside or suitably modified.
Learned counsel appearing for the owner, in A.O. No. 438 of 2012, submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the owner. It was contended that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company had failed to discharge the burden of proving any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was submitted that the driver had left the services of the owner after the accident and, therefore, could not appear before the Tribunal to produce his driving licence. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no evidence on record to establish that the driver was not duly licensed and, consequently, the owner could not have been saddled with the liability to reimburse the Insurance Company. The findings of the Tribunal regarding the driving licence and the consequential recovery rights were, therefore, assailed and setting aside of the said direction was sought.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the principal questions which arise for consideration in these connected appeals are, firstly, as to the liability of the Insurance Company and the recovery rights granted to it against the owner and, secondly, as to the just compensation payable to the claimants. So far as the occurrence of the accident and the negligence of the driver are concerned, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1. The evidence led by the claimants, particularly the testimony of the eyewitness, supports the case that the deceased was travelling in Bus No. U.P.-02-C-2021 and that, on account of the manner in which the vehicle was being driven and the sudden application of brakes, he fell from the bus and sustained fatal injuries. The mere absence of an FIR or post-mortem examination cannot, by itself, discredit the otherwise acceptable oral evidence regarding the accident. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not required to be decided on the standard of proof applicable to a criminal prosecution. On the evidence available on record, the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle stand sufficiently established. The finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1, therefore, calls for no interference.
The offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company on the date of the accident. The more contentious question is with regard to the validity of the driving licence and the consequential direction granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company. The impugned award proceeded on the premise that the owner and driver had failed to establish that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence and, on that basis, the Insurance Company was granted the right to recover the amount paid by it from the owner. However, the said finding was subsequently reconsidered pursuant to the order dated 04.12.2012 passed by this Court in A.O. No.438 of 2012. In the proceedings before learned Tribunal pursuant to the said order, the driver, Ramesh Chandra, appeared as DW-1 and produced his driving licence and the relevant documents. The learned Tribunal, after considering the said material, recorded a finding by order dated 15.03.2013 that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident.
The subsequent material on record assumes significance inasmuch as the driving licence was also got verified by the Insurance Company and the verification report supported its validity. Thus, the very basis on which the recovery rights were granted in the original award no longer survives. The subsequent finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.4, therefore, deserves to be given effect to. Consequently, the direction granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the owner cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid finding, the challenge raised by the Insurance Company to its liability also fails. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company on the date of the accident and no breach of the policy condition, so far as the driving licence is concerned, has ultimately been established. The Insurance Company is, therefore, liable to satisfy the award without any right of recovery against the owner. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company does not merit interference with the award on the question of liability.
The next question concerns the quantum of compensation. The learned Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at ₹3,000/-, despite the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was working as a skilled mason (raj mistri) and earning ₹8,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month. Although the claimed income cannot be accepted in the absence of documentary proof, the assessment of ₹3,000/- per month appears unduly low considering his occupation. In Suresh Jatav v. Sukhendra Singh, 2025 INSC 821, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted a monthly income of ₹6,000/-for a skilled mason in an accident of the year 2002. Although the case concerned permanent disability, the assessment provides a reasonable benchmark in the present case as well. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at ₹6,000/-.
The next question concerns future prospects and the multiplier. The Insurance Company challenged the multiplier of 14, contending that the deceased was aged about 55 years as per the family register. However, no cogent material has been produced to displace the age assessment made by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the multiplier of 14 is retained, being consistent with Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. With the monthly income assessed at ₹6,000/-, the annual income comes to ₹72,000/-. An addition of 25% towards future prospects is warranted under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, bringing the annual income to ₹90,000/-. After deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses, the annual dependency comes to ₹67,500/-. Applying the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency is calculated at ₹9,45,000/-.
The claimants would further be entitled to compensation under the conventional heads. The concept of consortium is not confined merely to spousal consortium and includes parental consortium payable to children who lose the care, guidance and companionship of a parent. This principle was recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the present case, however, having regard to the circumstances appearing from the record, including the fact that claimants Nos.2 to 5 were major at the relevant time, it would not be appropriate to mechanically multiply the conventional amount by the number of claimants. A sum of ₹40,000/- towards spousal consortium to claimant No.1 and ₹40,000/-towards parental consortium to the minor claimant No.6 would, in the facts of the present case, adequately compensate the loss under this head. A further sum of ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses is awarded under the conventional heads. The conventional amounts are consistent with the framework laid down in Pranay Sethi(supra)
Accordingly, the compensation is recalculated as follows: Loss of dependency - ₹9,45,000/-; Spousal consortium - ₹40,000/-; Parental consortium -₹40,000/- ;Loss of estate -₹15,000/- ; Funeral expenses -₹15,000/-. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants comes to ₹10,55,000/-. The learned Tribunal had awarded ₹3,98,000/-. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of ₹6,57,000/- over and above the amount already awarded. As regards interest, the learned Tribunal restricted the award of interest and directed that interest at the rate of 6% per annum would become payable from the date of the award till actual payment. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment.
For the foregoing reasons, the challenge raised by the Insurance Company to the award and its liability fails, whereas the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation and the owner has succeeded in demonstrating that the direction granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company cannot survive in view of the subsequent finding regarding the validity of the driving licence.
Accordingly, A.O. No. 141 of 2012, preferred by the claimants, is allowed. The compensation is enhanced from ₹3,98,000/- to ₹10,55,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment is made. Out of the original compensation of ₹3,98,000/-, a sum of ₹3,50,000/- was deposited pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, after adjustment of the statutory deposit, leaving a balance of ₹48,000/-. The enhancement in compensation amounts to ₹6,57,000/-. Thus, the total unpaid principal amount comes to ₹7,05,000/- (₹48,000/- + ₹6,57,000/-). The Insurance Company shall deposit the aforesaid amount of ₹7,05,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment is made before learned Tribunal within a period of one month from today. The learned Tribunal shall release the amount so deposited, to the claimants forthwith. Any amount of compensation already paid shall be given due credit.
A.O. No. 438 of 2012, preferred by the owner, is allowed. The direction granting recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the owner is set aside.
A.O. No. 264 of 2012, preferred by the Insurance Company, is dismissed. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the enhanced award in terms of the directions contained herein, after adjustment of the amounts already paid or deposited.