United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Malti Devi & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 250 of 2011, whereby a compensation of Rs.10,36,479/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Nine only) has been awarded to the claimants.

Brief facts of the case are that the motor accident, as per the records, occurred on 25.09.2011 between Dehradun and Haridwar in Uttarakhand.

The deceased Satish Ranjan who was a pillion rider was going on a motorcycle along with his friend Vinay Bajpai from Dehradun to Haridwar. At about 05:00 PM, when they reached at a place called “Chiddarwala”, a Tata Sumo Vista bearing Registration No. U.K.-07T.A.-1735, which was going in the same direction hit the back of the motorcycle, as a result of which, both the driver and the pillion rider fell from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and subsequently they were taken to a nearby hospital called Himalayan Hospital at Jolly Grant, District Dehradun, and ultimately Satish Ranjan died during treatment.

A claim petition was filed by the claimants, who are mother and brother of the deceased, claiming a compensation of Rs.20,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on account of death of Satish Ranjan in the motor accident. It was said in the claim petition that the deceased was aged about 24 years and was working on the post of Training Engineer-DRO Service in the Lucknow Branch and was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month. Due to sudden death of Satish Ranjan, they have suffered mental, physical and monetary loss.

Written statements were filed by the owner of the vehicle, driver of the vehicle as well as by the Insurance Company.

On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether on 25.09.2011 when the deceased was going along with his friend as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration no. U.K.- 07A.G.-9373, from Dehradun to Haridwar on the National Highway-72, it met with an accident near a village called “Chiddarwala”, with a Tata Sumo Vista bearing registration no. U.K.07T.A.1735, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and ultimately died?

Whether at the time of accident the Tata Sumo Vista bearing registration no. U.K.-07T.A.-1735 was being driven against the terms of the insurance policy? If yes, then it’s effect?

Whether the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for any compensation? If yes, then from which of the parties and to what extent?”

While deciding issue no. 1, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo Vista bearing registration no. U.K.-07T.A.-1735 and as a result of this accident Satish Ranjan sustained grievous injuries and he ultimately passed away. This finding of the learned Tribunal was based on the evidence placed before the Tribunal in the form of PW-2 Situ Dobriyal, who was also going on his motorcycle at the relevant time from Haridwar to Dehradun and saw the accident in front of his eyes as he was about 50 meters behind the place of occurrence. This witness has given a categorical statement that Tata Sumo Vista bearing registration no. U.K.-07T.A.- 1735 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. In his statement, this witness has also stated that he had called 108 Ambulance and at the relevant time Satish Ranjan was in some senses and he had told him that he is a resident of Bihar and the name of the driver of the motorcycle is Vinay Bajpai. Therefore, the fact that the accident did happen due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo Vista has been clearly established.

There was no fault on the part of the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration no. U.K.07A.G.-9373, on which contributory negligence can be fixed.

So far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and it was not being driven against the terms of the insurance policy.

As regarding the amount of compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence in the form of PW 3 Sagar Afley, determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,329/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Nine only) i.e. Rs.1,11,948/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight only) per annum. Out of this amount, one-half was deducted towards personal expenses and the annual dependency income was calculated as Rs.55,980/-(Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty only). Then considering the age of the mother of the deceased, a multiplier of 15 was applied and the amount was calculated as Rs.8,39,700/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred only).

Apart from this, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand

only) towards physical and mental suffering and Rs.1,76,779/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Nine only) towards medical expenses. Thus the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,36,479/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Nine only) to the claimants.

Aggrieved, the appellant/insurance company has filed the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly determined the monthly income of the deceased. Moreover, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of nine per cent and thereafter in case the appellant fails to pay the amount within thirty days, the interest shall be payable at the rate of twelve per cent is also on the higher side.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would argue that the multiplier should have been 17 instead of 15 and instead of deducting one-half amount towards personal expenses, one-third was liable to be deducted. However, since there is no appeal of the claimants, nothing can be said on this aspect. As far as interest part is concerned, this Court is of a considered view that it is perfectly valid. In fact, there is no appeal by the claimants for enhancement of the award.

This Court finds no ground for any interference in the matter. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.

Let the entire amount along with the interest as directed by the Tribunal be deposited by the insurance company with the concerned Tribunal after adjusting the amount already deposited. After the entire amount is deposited by the insurance company, let the same be released in favour of the claimants within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be also remitted to the concerned Tribunal.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be sent to the concerned Tribunal for onward compliance.