Uttarakhand High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ramesh Singh And Others on 1 September, 2017
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 470/2016
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Singh & Others .... Respondents
Mr. K.K. Shah, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate, for the claimants/respondents 1 to 5.
None for the remaining respondents.
September 1, 2017
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Having heard learned Counsel of the appellant and the claimants, it transpires that the accident occurred on 10.12.2012 at 7.45 PM somewhere at the outskirts of Kashipur when Prem Singh, a man of 34 years was dashed by a rear coming truck no. UP-17/5097. He died at the spot. FIR No. 678/2012 was lodged for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A I.P.C. in the concerning police station. This Court is not aware about the fate of such FIR or the trial (if any).
Five petitioners, namely, Ramesh Singh (married brother aged 53 years), Smt. Munni (married sister aged 51 years), Hari Om (married brother aged 46 years), Man Singh (another married brother aged 42 years) and Smt. Kusum (married sister aged about 32 years) presented claim petition no. 02/2013 asking compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.2016 granted compensation of Rs. 3,88,000/- along with 7.5 per cent annual interest w.e.f. 4.1.2013 till the actual payment. This award has been challenged by the insurance company with whom the offending truck was insured for the like such accident.
2Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph 3 of the claim petition which avers that the claimants have lost their son untimely, which caused the mental agony as well as physical injury to them.
As have been indicated above that all these claimants are not either mother or father of the deceased Prem Singh. So, there remains no doubt that this claim petition has been drafted in a stereotyped manner by the concerning Advocate. In other words, it is the petition which can be termed as "cut, copy, paste" filed by the almost self-claimed designated advocates of these matters, without application of mind.
Further, in paragraph 3 itself, it has also been pleaded that the deceased used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month by selling the vegetables which he used to spend for the maintenance of his family. At the same time, PW1 Ramesh Singh has deposed in his cross-examination that his deceased brother Prem Singh was unmarried. His one sister resides at Jaspur and another sister resides at Kashipur, but the exact address of both of them is not known to him, while in the claim petition all the five petitioners have displayed their same address of Kashipur.
PW1 Ramesh Singh has also deposed that he has a married daughter of 31 years and a son of 33 years and he is looked after by his son. His parents are not alive. They have passed away years ago.
So, I think that any of the claimants is not dependant upon the deceased.
Learned Counsel of the insurer has relied upon the celebrated judgment rendered in Sarla Verma case, reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677, wherein the claim petition when presented for the death of an unmarried youth, the 3 Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 15 has held that subject to the evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. Subject to the evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent or earning or married or dependant on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother will be considered as dependant.
Way back in 1995, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held identically in case of Latif Ahmad Khan & Others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others, reported in 1995 ACJ 1241, wherein at paragraph no. 4, it has observed as under:
"As regards the brothers and sisters of the two deceased, there is no doubt that they are legal representatives of the deceased persons. However, not a word has been breathed in evidence about the loss sustained by them. Though legal representatives are entitled to compensation, in the absence of materials in the present case, are not able to award any compensation to them and affirm the award of the Tribunal in this respect."
Arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant have been refuted by the learned Counsel of the claimants relying upon the law laid down by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Unus & Another v. Rais & Others, 2015 (2) TAC 526, wherein it has been categorically held that a claim compensation petition under Section 163A and 166 of the M.V. Act is maintainable by 4 the legal representatives. A legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. Legislature has not used the word "dependant", rather it has used the words "all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased". Even if, there is no dependence, there is a loss of estate and a person who is legal representative but not dependant can yet be beneficiary of the estate. Hence, the claim petition filed by the brother of the deceased is maintainable.
I think this precedent of Allahabad High Court rendered in Mohd. Unus case does not refer other earlier law laid down by that very High Court in the case of Latif Ahmad Khan (supra). So, certainly, the precedent laid down in Mohd. Unus case is per incuriam.
It is trite that the precedent laid down by the different High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court is the interpretation of the bare provisions of the law and such precedents always prevail over and above the bare law, as has been contemplated in the statute book.
In view of what has been set forth above, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Court below.
Registry shall forthwith remit the amount of compulsory statutory deposit along with the interest accrued on it to the Tribunal concerned. Thereafter the entire deposited amount of the insurance company along with interest shall be returned to the appellant.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Prabodh