AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Indira Banerjee, J. - This appeal is against a judgment and award dated 19th November, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District and Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in MAC Case No. 12 of 2007 being an application for compensation filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as ''the respondent claimants) claiming compensation for the death of Panchanan Mondal in a motor accident allegedly caused due to the fault and negligence of a Taxi bearing the registration no. WB- 04A-5756, owned by the respondent no.5 and covered by a policy of insurance issued by the appellant insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
It is not in dispute that the offending Taxi was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the appellant insurer. It is also not in dispute that the said Taxi was involved in a road traffic accident which caused the death of the said Panchanan Mondal, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent claimants.
The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, found in effect that the accident was caused due to the fault and negligence of the driver of the said Taxi.
In the claim application, the respondent claimants had claimed that the deceased victim had, at the time of his death, total income of Rs. 10,000/- odd. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased victim at Rs. 4,500/- per month at the time of his death. It was also found that the deceased victim was 49 years of age. He was, therefore, in the age group of 45- 50 years. The multiplier "13", applicable to the said age group, was applied by the learned Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal has computed the compensation in accordance with the principles for computation of compensation as laid down in the Second Schedule. The annual income has been assessed at Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 4500/- X 12). The figure has been multiplied by "13". From the total, one-third has been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased victim. Thereafter, Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- to the widow towards loss of consortium.
It further appears that the respondent claimants were able to prove that medical expenses of Rs. 1,56,969/- had been incurred for treatment, operation, pathological investigation etc. of the deceased victim before his death. The learned Tribunal awarded the aforesaid amount.
The quantum of compensation is not seriously disputed by the appellant insurer. The appellant insurer contends that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license. It, however, appears that there was a driving license. It was the contention that Shyamal Halder, to whom the driving license belonged, was not the person driving the vehicle.
The learned Tribunal should have decided the question of whether the vehicle was driven by Shyamal Halder in whose name the license stood, or alternatively, inquired into the question of who was the driver of the vehicle and whether he had any license. However, in effect and substance, the learned Tribunal held that the insurer could not avoid its liability having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance v. Swaran Singh, reported in 2004 (1) TAC 321 (SC).
In Swaran Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that an insurer could not avoid its liability unless it was proved that the insurer deliberately permitted the vehicle to be driven by a person without driving license.
Since the learned Tribunal has given the appellant insurer the liberty to recover the amount of the award from the owner of the vehicle, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere. The appellant insurer has the remedy of initiating appropriate proceedings against the respondent owner for recovery of its dues.
The award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of deposit of the awarded amount in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 13th January, 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4897-4898 of 2014 (Smt. Neeta W/O Kallappa Kadolkar and others v. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur) and Surti Gupta v. United India Assurance Co. and another, reported in 2015 SAR (Civil) 571, where the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum only, instead of 9% per annum on the compensation amount, as per the principles laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy.
It will be open to the respondent claimants to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the learned Registrar General of this Court. The Registrar General shall intimate the appellant insurer of the exact amount disbursed to the respondent claimants. The appellant insurer shall, within two months from the date of receiving such intimation from the Registrar General, release the balance interest to the respondent claimants.
The appeal and all connected applications are disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.
Sahidullah Munshi, J. - I agree.