AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by Insurance Company against judgment and award dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No.178 of 2009, whereby claim petition filed by claimant on account of death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident was allowed and compensation of ₹4,78,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum was awarded, with a direction to the Insurance Company to satisfy award and recover amount from owner of offending vehicle.
Brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.2008, deceased-Trilok Singh, while travelling on his motorcycle towards Rudrapur, reached near Panchayat Ghar on Rampur Road, Haldwani, at about 01:40 P.M., when a truck bearing registration No.U.S.I.-9959, being driven by respondent no.2, allegedly at a high speed and negligently, came from behind and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of accident, Trilok Singh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them at the spot. The post-mortem examination was conducted at Base Hospital, Haldwani. The claimant, being mother of deceased, thereafter filed a claim petition seeking compensation of ₹5,00,000/- along with interest. The learned Tribunal, after considering evidence on record, allowed the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 28.11.2011 and awarded a sum of ₹4,78,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, with a direction to Insurance Company to pay awarded amount and recover the same from owner of offending vehicle. Aggrieved by said award, present appeal has been preferred by Insurance Company.
The claimant pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.U.S.I.-9959 by respondent no.2, resulting in death of her son, Trilok Singh. It was pleaded that deceased was a young and educated person and was engaged in agricultural work and was earning approximately ₹5,000/-per month. It was further pleaded that deceased was the only son of claimant and was also preparing to join police service. On these grounds, compensation of ₹5,00,000/- along with interest was claimed.
Respondent nos.1 and 2, namely, owner and driver of offending vehicle, denied allegations made in claim petition and put claimant to strict proof thereof. It was pleaded that claim petition was based on incorrect facts and was liable to be dismissed. It was, however, stated that offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 and that, in event of any liability being found, same was liable to be borne by Insurance Company.
Respondent no.3-Insurance Company denied its liability and pleaded that claimant was required to establish the accident and negligence of driver as well as her entitlement to compensation claimed. It was further pleaded that vehicle was being operated in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and that necessary documents relating to vehicle, including a valid permit, were required to be proved. On these grounds, dismissal of claim petition was sought.
The learned Tribunal framed following issues:-
a. Whether on 18.12.2008, when Trilok Singh was proceeding towards Rudrapur on his motorcycle, near Panchayat Ghar, Rampur Road, Haldwani, at about 01:40 P.M., the truck bearing registration No.U.S.I.-9959, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, collided with motorcycle of Trilok Singh, resulting in his death?
b. Whether there was any defect on the part of claimant in not impleading necessary parties?
c. Whether, at the time of accident, driver of truck No.U.S.I.-9959 possessed a valid driving licence and vehicle had valid documents?
d. Whether claimant is entitled to any compensation and, if so, to what amount and from which of opposite parties?
I. While deciding Issue No.1 learned Tribunal, after considering oral testimony of claimant and eyewitness evidence, as well as First Information Report, post-mortem report and other documents on record, found that accident had occurred when truck No.U.S.I.-9959, being driven by respondent no.2, was being driven rashly and negligently and struck motorcycle of deceased from behind. The Tribunal accordingly held that death of Trilok Singh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver and decided Issue No.1 in favour of claimant.
II. While deciding Issue No.2 learned Tribunal considered objection of Insurance Company that owner of motorcycle ought to have been impleaded as a necessary party. The Insurance Company had contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself while driving motorcycle. The Tribunal, however, found that no evidence had been produced by Insurance Company in support of said contention, whereas, while deciding Issue No.1, it had already been established that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.U.S.I.-9959 and that there was no negligence on part of deceased. Accordingly, Tribunal held that there was no justification for impleading owner of motorcycle as a necessary party and decided Issue No.2 in favour of claimant.
III. While deciding Issue No.3 on consideration of the registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, tax documents and driving licence produced on record, the Tribunal found that driver of the offending truck possessed a valid driving licence and that the vehicle had valid registration, fitness and other requisite documents on the date of accident. However, the permit produced by owner was found to have been issued for Uttar Pradesh, whereas the accident had occurred in Uttarakhand. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the vehicle did not possess a valid permit for Uttarakhand, although other documents were valid.
IV. On Issue No.4 while determining compensation, Tribunal accepted deceased's monthly income at ₹6,000/-, deducted one-half towards his personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 13, thereby assessing loss of dependency at ₹4,68,000/-. A further sum of ₹5,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹5,000/- towards loss of estate was awarded, making total compensation ₹4,78,000/-. Tribunal held that, owing to violation relating to permit, Insurance Company was liable to satisfy award in first instance, with liberty to recover the amount from owner of offending vehicle. The claimant was also awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
The appellant-Insurance Company pleaded that learned Tribunal has erred in fastening liability upon it to satisfy award. It was contended that, at the time of accident, the offending truck was not having a valid permit authorising its use in the State of Uttarakhand and, therefore, there was a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It was further contended that Tribunal had assessed income of deceased at ₹6,000/- per month without there being sufficient documentary evidence in support thereof. According to appellant, deceased was engaged in agricultural work and income from agricultural land would continue to accrue to family even after his death. Reliance was placed upon the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Devi and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie in support of its submissions. On these grounds, the appellant sought setting aside of the direction requiring it to satisfy the award and to recover the amount from owner.
Respondent no.2, the owner of offending truck, contested the appeal and pleaded that the vehicle possessed all the requisite documents and that there was no breach of the insurance policy. It was specifically pleaded that the vehicle was covered by Permit No. 19621/RTA/MBD, which had been countersigned by the competent authority of Uttarakhand on 28.11.2008 and was valid up to 31.10.2013 for all Uttarakhand, excluding hill routes. It was stated that the said permit had inadvertently not been produced before the Tribunal, on account of which the Tribunal had proceeded to hold that the vehicle did not possess a valid permit for Uttarakhand. Respondent no.2, therefore, sought to produce the original permit before this Court as additional evidence and contended that, since the accident had occurred at Rampur Road, Haldwani, a plain-area location, the vehicle was duly covered by the permit on the date of the accident. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the direction granting the Insurance Company the right to recover awarded amount from owner was liable to be set aside.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the principal challenge raised by the appellant relates to validity of permit of offending vehicle and consequential direction issued by the Tribunal granting appellant the right to recover awarded amount from respondent no.2. In this regard, respondent no.2 has moved Civil Misc. Application No.3131 of 2012 for taking on record the original Permit No.19621/RTA/MBD, bearing Counter Signature No.8057/STA/PPUC/CS/08 dated 28.11.2008, issued in respect of Truck No.USI-9959. This application was allowed by this Court on 29.04.2013 and said documents were taken on record. The said permit has been countersigned by competent State Transport Authority and is valid from 28.11.2008 to 31.10.2013 for all Uttarakhand, excluding hill routes. The accident in the present case occurred at Rampur Road, Haldwani, which is a plain area and does not fall within exclusion contained in the permit. Thus, on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was duly covered by a valid permit authorising its operation at the place where the accident occurred.
The learned Tribunal had proceeded on the premise that the permit authorising the vehicle to ply in Uttarakhand had not been produced before it and, on that basis, had held that there was a breach of the permit condition and consequently directed the Insurance Company to first satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the owner. However, the original permit now produced in appeal establishes that the vehicle had a valid permit for Uttarakhand on the date of the accident. There is also nothing on record to establish that any of the conditions attached to the said permit were violated at the time of the accident. Consequently, the very basis for granting the appellant the right of recovery against respondent no.2 does not survive. As regards the remaining challenge to the assessment of income of the deceased at ₹6,000 per month, the assessment made by the learned Tribunal, having regard to the age, educational background and occupation of the deceased and the material available on record, does not call for interference in the present appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The direction granting the appellant-Insurance Company the right to recover the awarded amount from respondent no.2 is, accordingly, set aside. The appellant shall be liable to satisfy the award in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 28.11.2011 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Claim Case No.178 of 2008 is affirmed. However, the direction whereby the appellant-Insurance Company was granted the right to recover the awarded amount from respondent no.2 is set aside. The appellant-Insurance Company shall satisfy the award, including the interest as directed by the learned Tribunal, in accordance with law.
The statutory amount of ₹25,000/- deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal for being released in favour of the claimants. The appellant shall further deposit the remaining amount of ₹2,26,500/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, within a period of eight weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the amount shall be released in favour of the claimants in terms of the award, giving due credit to the amount, if any, released in favour of the claimant.