AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—This appeal, u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 8-6-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/ Ist F.T.C. Haldwani, in MACT Case No. 252 of 2004.
Brief facts of the case are that on 1-7-2004 at about 3-40 P.M. when Ramesh Chandra Tewari was driving his Vikram Tempo No. U.A. 04-A-1394 towards Lalkuan, Truck No. DL-1-G-A/2281 coming from Lalkuan side came there in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Vikram Tempo on wrong side and carried the Vikram dragging up-to 20-25 paces where it dashed with a tree, due to the passengers of Vikram and its driver sustained grievous injuries and the driver Ramesh Chandra Tewari died at the spot.
The claimant, widow of the deceased, filed claim petition alleging therein that the deceased was a young man and from plying Vikram and agricultural work, he used to earn about Rs. 6,000/- per month.
The opposite party No. 1, owner of the Truck No. D.O. 1-G-A/2281, filed his written statement and alleged that the accident had occurred due to burst of the tyre. At the time of accident the driver was having valid driving license and the truck was insured with United India Insurance Company therefore the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
The opposite party No. 2 United India Insurance Company also filed written statement and alleged that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent of deceased as he was driving the Tempo negligently. The insurance company can only be held liable when the truck owner proves that there was No. breach of condition of insurance policy and the driver was having valid driving license and the truck was also possessing valid documents.
The learned tribunal on the pleading of parties framed issues in the claim petition.
Thereafter parties adduced evidence. The leaned tribunal after hearing counsel for parties and considering the material available on record, allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 6,55,000/- as compensation and directed the United India Insurance Company to pay the compensation within a period of one month, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
Heard learned Counsel for Appellant as well as counsel for claimant/Respondent No. 1. None has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2/ owner of offending truck despite service.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the tribunal has recorded wrong finding on the point of contributory negligence, whereas the deceased was also negligent in causing the accident.
I do not find any force in the above submission. The first information report of the accident was lodged at P.S. Lalkuan and in the first information report this fact has been mentioned that the accident had occurred due to the rashness of the driver of the truck. The opposite party/owner in his written statement has alleged that the accident had occurred due to burst of tyre, but No. evidence has been adduced in this regard. The opposite parties have admitted this fact that the death of deceased Ramesh Chandra Tewari had occurred in the accident in which truck No. D.L. 1-G-A/2281 was involved. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence regarding the negligence on the part of driver of tempo. In the first information report it has specifically been mentioned that the truck dashed the tempo on wrong side and carried the tempo dragging for some distance. Therefore, this fact clearly indicates towards the negligence of truck driver. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the tribunal holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of truck driver.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant next submitted that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased and the multiplier was also applied on higher side. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is liable to be reduced.
According to claimant deceased was driving his own tempo and he was also selling milk. He was supplying 14-15 litres milk daily to Dugdh Utpadak Samiti and was getting Rs. 180/- to 195/- per day. In this way the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. The claimant has filed certificate issued by Secretary, Dugdh Utpadak Samiti Ltd. Haidagajjar. In the above certificate it has been mentioned that the deceased was supplying 14-15 litres milk daily and cost of the above milk was about Rs. 180/- to 195/-. In respect of income from Tempo the claimant has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence. The tribunal has held that the deceased would have certainly earned Rs. 150/- per day from selling milk and plying his own Tempo. Therefore, the monthly income was taken as Rs. 4,500/- and annual income of Rs. 54,000/-. The tribunal after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased has taken the net dependency of claimant as Rs. 36,000/- per annum. I do not find any illegality in above finding of the tribunal. The deceased was 30 years of age at the time of accident and the tribunal applied the multiplier of 18. The multiplier of 18 is on higher side, in view of the observation of Hon''ble Apex Court made in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . In above cited case the Apex Court has held that suitable multiplier for the age group of 26 to 30 would be ''17''. Therefore, after applying the multiplier of 17 the compensation comes to Rs. 36,000/- X 17= Rs. 6,12,000/-. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium. In this way the compensation comes to Rs. 6,12,000/- + Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-= Rs. 6,19,000/-.
For the discussion made above the appeal is liable to be partly allowed.
The appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 6,19,000/- as compensation from United India Insurance Company, along with the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal, instead of Rs. 6,55,000/- as has been awarded by the tribunal.