AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akhilesh Chandra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This is an appeal preferred against composite judgment dated 17th March 2008 passed in Claim Case No. 100 & 101 of 2002 by 9th Additional District Judge-cum-Claim Tribunal, Patna, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,14,500/- against death of Smt. Raj Rani Devi deceased in Claim Case No. 100/2002 and Rs. 9,99,060/- against death of husband Ranjit Kumar Singh deceased in Claim Case No. 101/2002 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded against death of Sri Ranjit Kumar Singh.
In former claim, appellant no. 4 was not the claimant but in later she was also claimant no. 4 being mother of deceased Ranjit Kumar Singh and rest of the three appellants are claimants in both the case being sons respectively aged 32, 27 and 26 years of the deceased couple.
As per the case of the appellants the couple along with their daughter Usha Singh and her children were traveling in their own Fiat Car bearing registration no. BR-26A/0525 on 14.05.2001 being driven by deceased Ranjit Kumar Singh with which a Tanker bearing Registration No. BR17G-4111 coming from opposite direction rashly and negligently dashed resulting into immediate death of Ranjit Kumar Singh and inflicting severe injury upon his wife who was declared dead while brought before the doctor and daughter Usha Singh also sustained some injuries at whose instance Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 57/2001 was instituted wherein police submitted charge-sheet against driver of the Tanker.
Admittedly, deceased Ranjit Kumar Singh aged 55 years was a Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company and had, as claimed, monthly salary of Rs. 24,085/- and due to his death the claimants suffered loss of income of Rs. 17,00,000/-, funeral expenses Rs. 2500/-, loss of property (Car) Rs. 95000/- and loss of state Rs. 2500/- and claimed Rs. 18,00,000/-. Though, in column 18 of the claim application they have clearly stated to have received full damage of Fiat Car bearing No. BR-26A/0525 from its insurer, New India Insurance Company.
The insurer and owner of the Tanker by filing separate written statements contented the claim besides others took pleas of non-joinder of necessary parties and non-production of driving license of the deceased who was as claimed driving the Fiat Car at the relevant time.
Before the Claim Tribunal altogether five witnesses have been examined by the claimants who though produced other papers exhibited but not the driving license of the deceased, which is as follows:
Formal F.I.R. of Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 57/2001
Charge-sheet of Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 57/2001
Fardbeyan
Salary certificate
Ext. x for identification-photocopy of PAN Number of Ranjit Kumar Singh
Photocopy of post mortem examination report of Ranjit Kumar Singh
5/1. Photocopy of post mortem examination report of Raj Rani Devi
Certificate of Ranjit Kumar Singh
And on behalf of Opposite Party no. 3 the insurance company one witness was examined besides Exhibit-A photocopy of Temporary permit of Tanker bearing Registration No. BR17G-4111.
The Claim Tribunal on consideration of the materials awarded compensation one of which is in dispute here but only for enhancement. The counter affidavit also appears filed by the insurer here in the appeal.
It is contended on behalf of the appellant that Exhibit-4 the salary certificate of the deceased has not properly been construed instead of total income worth Rs. 24,085.8 paisa after deducting different deduction though shown in Exhibit-4, the net income of Rs. 15,540/- only has been considered and instead of 1/4th deduction as prescribed by Apex Court in a case Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, ; 1/3rd has been deducted.
On the other hand, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that taking into consideration the different deductions towards his contribution in provident fund and housing loan etc. Claim Tribunal has committed no error in taking the net salary of the deceased for consideration and simultaneously committed an error while not deducting 30% of the compensation toward income tax.
Further, it is also contended that for no reason the claimants have not made party to the proceeding the informant of criminal cases who is none else than admitted daughter of the deceased couple and further claimants appellants are also silent about any other daughter of the deceased if she or they are. The active concealment of such a relevant fact disentitles the claimants from any claim and that apart it is a case of claimant appellant that deceased himself was driving the vehicle but the appellants have no care to produce the driving license of the deceased, if at all, he had on that basis also the claimants of the deceased Ranjit Kumar Singh are not entitled for more than an amount as prescribed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It comes from the pleading (claim application) that the deceased couple were accompanied by their own daughter Usha Singh which is also admitted by AW 1 (claimant no. 1) in his cross-examination and in spite of putting the question during cross examination in para-17 he says that his daughter is not party to the claim application (either claimant or Opposite Party) and at the same time in para-14 of the cross examination in spite of his assertion that his deceased father had valid driving license which was not produced till his cross examination has not been produced till today. AW 2 Ashok Kumar Singh is none else than Claimant no. 2, in examination in chief also admits his sister also sustained injuries in same accident, but there is no explanation for her not being impleaded and likewise, his eldest brother AW 1 in cross examination he also admits his father having valid driving license was on the driving seat and denied the assertion that due to his negligence accident taking place, but did nothing towards filing of such license. AW 3 Subodh Kumar, likewise his other two brothers he has stated same thing about his sister who is not only the informant of the criminal case but appeared as AW 4 asserting his father had valid driving license and it was the driver of the Tanker who committed error, but in spite of questions regarding driving license etc. the claimants dared not to produce the driving license of the deceased. Thus, under law adverse inference is bound to be drawn against them and it is to be presumed that deceased had no driving license. Consequently, there is substance in the submission made by insurer that in fact no award could have been passed against death of the deceased Ranjit Kumar Singh for amount more than prescribed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. AW 5 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased proved Exhibit-4.
The facts and circumstances stated above speaks a lot that the claimants have already received much more than their entitlement since as stated above in absence valid authority to drive the Car by the deceased no amount more than Rs. 50,000/- as prescribed u/s 140 of the Act could have been awarded against his death. But at the same time since there is no appeal preferred by the insurer who has already paid the amount awarded, there cannot be any reduction at the same time there also cannot be any enhancement in view of the decision of the Apex Court in a case Ranjana Prakash and Others Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, ; relied upon by the appellant. Accordingly, finding no merit, this appeal is hereby dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.