AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—1. The appellant - Shriram General Insurance Company has filed these appeals, challenging the judgment and awards dated 17.09.2014 made in MVC Nos. 1116/2012 to 1118/2012 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') fastening the liability on the insurance company to compensate the claimants.
Since the common judgment passed by the Tribunal has been challenged, all the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.
The facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under:
"The claimants in all the claim petitions are the legal representatives of deceased Md. Arif Iqbal, Mirza Khadeer Baig and Md. Sadiq, who were working as loader and unloader in a lorry bearing Reg. No. AP-28/U-1185 belonging to the first respondent before the Tribunal. On 14.06.2012, while they were unloading the marble stones, the driver of the lorry negligently moved the vehicle. Due to that, marble stones fell upon the loader and unloaders standing near the lorry. In view of that, all the three laborers standing near the lorry sustained grievous injuries. One person died on the spot and the remaining two persons died while shifting to the hospital. The claimants claimed that the deceased persons were aged about 19 and 20 years respectively. They were working as loader and unloader of marble stones and earning Rs. 8,500/- p.m. Due to their death, their families have lost the bread earner and hence, sought for compensation of Rs. 12,80,000/- in each of the claim petitions."
In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, the first respondent/owner of the vehicle though served with notice, he remained unrepresented.
The 2nd respondent - Insurance Company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petitions and also rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. They specifically contended that due to negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry, the marble stones fell on the deceased persons, due to which, they sustained injuries and died. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
The claimants in order to prove their case, they got examined themselves as PWs.1 to 3 in the respective claim petitions and got marked the necessary documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the respondents, one of the officers of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R4.
The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the police records held that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the accident had occurred and the marble stones fell on the deceased persons, due to which, they sustained injuries and died. Hence, claimants are dependants of the deceased persons and they are entitled to compensation.
With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased persons were earning a sum of Rs. 8,500/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased persons as Rs. 6,000/- p.m., deducting 50% of their income towards personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier, awarded compensation of Rs. 5,34,000/- in MVC Nos. 1117 and 1116 of 2012 and Rs. 4,98,000/- in MVC No. 1118/2012 with interest at 6%p.a.
With regard to liability is concerned, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was in operation as on the date of the accident. Hence, the liability has been fastened on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed these appeals.
Sri C.S. Kalburgi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in these appeals contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimants is contrary to law. The original cover note of the insurance policy had lost by the agent, which was made use of by the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the offending vehicle is not covered by insurance policy. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimants.
On the other hand, Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned Advocate appearing for the claimants contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. As on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was covered by insurance policy. The cover note issued by the Insurance Company clearly discloses that the offending vehicle is covered by the insurance policy. However, the policy sent by the Insurance Company is not received by the owner of the vehicle. However, Insurance Company cannot disown their liability to compensate the claimants. The original cover note of the policy clearly discloses that the policy was in operation from 21.3.2012 to 20.3.2013, the accident had occurred on 14.6.2012. Hence, the insurer has to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the appeals.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
The records clearly disclose that the accident had occurred on 14.6.2012 due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. AP-28/U-1185 while unloading the marble stones, which were fell on the unloaders, who sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal is that the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry is not disputed by the Insurance Company. Hence, it is clear that due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, the accident had occurred and three loaders died due to the fall of marble stones on them. The legal representatives of the deceased persons are entitled to compensation. The main contention of the appellant - insurance company is that as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was not covered. Though a feeble attempt has been made by the appellant, the said contention has not been substantiated by leading necessary evidence. The insurance policy was in operation from 21.3.2012 to 20.3.2013. However, the defence of the Insurance Company is that the original cover note of the insurance policy was lost on 01.02.2013. Admittedly, the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle. Unless the vehicle is covered by insurance policy, it is not allowed to transport any goods. Admittedly, the offending vehicle after loading the marble stones at Hyderabad was proceeding towards Gulbarga and the vehicle is an interstate vehicle. The Insurance Company has not substantiated its contention that there was no insurance policy as on the date of accident. Hence, the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. Though the contention has been taken by the appellant that as on the date of accident, the driver of the lorry was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the goods vehicle, the said contention has not been substantiated by the appellant by leading necessary evidence and producing documents. The police have also not registered the case for not holding the driving license. In the absence of the same, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The Tribunal taking into consideration the income being earned by the loader and unloader, awarded just compensation. The appellant -Insurance Company has not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
"ORDER
All the appeals are dismissed.
The amount in deposit made before this Court is directed to be transferred to the MACT, Gulbarga."