Madhya Pradesh High Court
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Nafeesa Begum And Ors. on 26 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)MPHT173
Author: A.K. Mishra
Bench: A.K. Mishra
ORDER A.K. Mishra, J.
1. The insurer has filed the present appeal aggrieved by award, dated April 21, 1999, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Tikamgarh thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 3,64,515/- on account of death of the deceased Abdul Jahur allowing the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of submitting the claim petition till realisation.
2. Abdul Jahur was working as a peon in the department of Central Railway at Jhansi. His salary was according to claimants, Rs. 2000/- per month. On May 23, 1993, he was travelling on a moped No. UP 93-A/5014 as a pillion rider. Said moped was insured with Oriental Insurance Company, the present appellant. Moped was being driven by Prem Narayan. The claimants submitted that moped met with ah accident with truck No. MPW-1986 due to which Abdul Jahur was seriously injured, taken to the Medical College Hospital, Jhansi, died after seven days on May 30, 1993. Police report was also lodged. Total sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- was claimed with interest at 18 per cent per annum. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,52,515/- on account of loss of dependency. The income of the deceased was assessed from the pay certificate (Ex. P-3) at Rs. 2361/- per month. An amount of Rs. 525/- was deducted on account of self-expenditure by the deceased. Dependency was determined at Rs. 1836/- per month, multiplier of 16 was applied. Thus the said loss of dependency was arrived at. In addition, a sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of consortium, Rs. 5000/- medical expenses and Rs. 2000/- funeral expenses were awarded, thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,64,515/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal found that the accident took place owing to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the moped hence insurer of the moped was held liable to indemnify.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal has vehemently submitted that the finding with respect to rash and negligent driving of driver of the moped is bad in law.
5. The defences of the insurer are restricted as per the provision under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, according to which, negligence and the quantum are not defences available to the insurer. The learned counsel submitted that as soon as it was found that the truck-driver was not negligent the claim petition ought to have been dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel is devoid of substance as the Tribunal is not bound by the pleadings but it has to give a finding of its own on material available on record and after giving the finding of the negligence of moped-driver the liability has been imposed on the insurer of the moped which cannot be said impermissible.
6. No other submission has been made.
7. The appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed.