AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
By this appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company has
challenged the judgment and order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara in MACP No. 30/2009.
The facts leading to the present appeal are that on 24.12.2008,
the husband of respondent No.1 was hit by a Maruti Omni vehicle, while
he was taking his morning walk. As a result of the accident, he suffered
serious injuries and died. The said vehicle was being driven by respondent
No.4 and was owned by respondent No.3.
On the basis of the aforesaid incident, an FIR was registered
and respondent No.4 was prosecuted for the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code as also Section
184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent No.1 filed claim
petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
(rupees five lakhs only) from respondent Nos.3 and 4 as also the appellant/
Insurance Company.
By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has held
that notwithstanding the acquittal of respondent No.4 in the criminal
proceedings initiated in respect of the said incident, the claim petition
deserved to be allowed. The Tribunal found that the monthly income of
the deceased was Rs.6,000/- and on that basis, by applying deductions and
multiplier and thereafter adding compensation under various heads, came
to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to
payment of compensation of Rs.6,57,000/- along with interest at the rate of
eight per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant/
Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal as it has been held to be
jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has submitted that the Tribunal had committed an error in
appreciating the effect of acquittal of respondent No.4 in the criminal
proceedings initiated in respect of the said incident, because the said
respondent had denied the involvement of vehicle in the accident
although it was admitted that at the time of accident, the said respondent
was proceeding in the offending vehicle on the concerned road. It is
further submitted that the calculation of monthly income by the Tribunal
is based on conjectures and surmises and that, therefore, there is an error
in the total amount of compensation calculated by the Tribunal. It is
further submitted that in view of the latest Constitution Judgment of the
Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited .v. Pranay Sethi and others (order dated 31.10.2017 passed in
SLP (C) No. 25590 of 2014), compensation of the amount towards loss of
consortium needs to be reduced.
On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Moharir, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that merely
because respondent No.4 was acquitted in criminal proceedings, it does
not mean that the claim petition filed by the said respondents before the
Tribunal could not be entertained on merits. The learned Counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of Guwahati High Court in the case of Ranu Bala
Paul and others .v. Bani Chakraborty and others (reported in 1999 ACJ
634), which, in turn, places reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble
Supreme Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. ( P) Ltd. .v. M. Karumai Ammal
and others (reported in 1980 ACJ, 435).
Having considered the contentions of the rival parties, I find
that the acquittal of respondent No4 in the criminal proceedings
concerning the incident in question would not adversely affect the right of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to claim compensation before the Tribunal under
the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal is justified in
holding that when respondent No.4 admitted the fact that the offending
vehicle, which he was driving, was actually driven through the road on
which the incident took place, there was no reason to hold that the said
vehicle was not involved in the incident. In any case, acquittal of
respondent No.4 in criminal proceedings would not be beneficial to either
respondent No.4 or the appellant to avoid liability in proceedings initiated
under the provisions of the said Act while seeking compensation. Reliance
placed by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the
judgment of Guwahati High Court in the case of Ranu Bala Paul and
others .v. Bani Chakraborty and others (cited supra) and the judgment of
the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. ( P) Ltd. .v. M.
Karumai Ammal and others (cited supra) is correct. Even otherwise the
record shows that there was charge-sheet filed against respondent No.4 in
respect of the said incident in which the number of offending vehicle was
very much mentioned. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the
contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the
presence of the vehicle at the time of incident was not established before
the Tribunal.
As regards the issue of calculation of monthly income of the
deceased, it has come on record that the deceased was running a shop in
the name and style "Dipak Book Depot and General Stores" and
respondent No.1 had deposed about the said fact in her evidence. She had
also claimed that the deceased was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month.
Although there was lack of documentary evidence to support the aforesaid
claim of respondent No.1, the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the
monthly income of the deceased could be taken at the rate of Rs.6,000/-
per month cannot be said to be of the mark or erroneous. Therefore, I do
not find any error in the basis of calculation of compensation by the
Tribunal.
There is no dispute as regards the deduction and the multiplier
applied by the Tribunal because it is in terms of law laid down by the
Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others .v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another (reported in 2009 ACJ, 1298).
In the latest Constitution Bench judgment rendered by the
Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited .v. Pranay Sethi and others (cited supra), it has been held that the
compensation of Rs.40,000/- is payable for loss of consortium and that
compensation under the head of funeral expenses has to be reduced to
Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, to that extent, the order of the Tribunal is required
to be modified and the amount granted under the aforesaid heads is to be
reduced. Accordingly, the amount of compensation will stand reduced by
a sum of Rs.70,000/-. As a result, the amount of compensation payable to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 comes to Rs. 5,87,000/-.
In the light of above, the instant appeal is partly allowed and
the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that respondent Nos.1
and 2 shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.5,87,000/- along with interest
at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the date of institution of claim
petition i.e. 12.02.2009. Since the appellant/Insurance Company had
deposited the entire amount in terms of the impugned judgment and
order in this Court, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw
the amount as indicated above upon modification in terms of this order.
The balance amount shall be returned to the appellant/Insurance
Company. The amount of costs deposited by the appellant, as directed by
this Court while condoning the delay, is also directed to be disbursed to
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.