Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Zile Singh And Ors. on 25 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2003ACJ654, 94(2001)DLT556
Author: Madan B. Lokur
Bench: Madan B. Lokur
JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 16th February, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 357 of 1996 and Fao No.331 of 1996.
2. Jagdev Singh was a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (for short DTC). He was standing near the 'paidan' or foot-board on the rear of a bus. When the bus took a sharp turn, he was thrown out and came under the wheels of a truck behind the bus, and was crushed to death. His widow and children applied to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) for the grant of compensation.
The MACT framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the death of Jagdev Singh resulted from the accident as alleged by the petitioner arising out of the use of truck No.DNL 1805 & DTC bus N. DHP-3781 on 24.489 at 6.35 P.M. on G.T. Road near crossing of Palla Road, Delhi.
2. Whether the petitioners are the LRs of the deceased late Jagdev Singh?
3. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in accident on 24.4.89 caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.HNL-1805 and DTC bus DEP-3781 on the pat of respondent No.1 or respondent No.5?
4. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled and from whom?
5. Relief."
3. With regard to issues 1 and 3, the MACT found that the accident was caused due to the composite negligence of the deceased, the driver of the DTC bus and the driver of the truck. With regard to issue No.2, there does not seem to have been any serious challenge and this was decided in favor of the Claimants.
4. In appeals filed by the driver of the truck (on the one hand) and the widow and children of the deceased (on the other), the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the findings of the MACT on issues 1 and 3, as they were not perverse. No further appeal has been filed by the driver of the truck or the widow and children of the deceased challenging these conclusions, and os we take it that the findings on issues 1 and 3 have attained finality.
5. Learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments on 5th September, 2001 on issue No.4. Arguments were concluded and judgment reserved on the same day.
6. The nub of the controversy raised before us by the Appellant insurance company is whether its liability is limited or not.
7. Admittedly, an "act only" policy of limited liability requires the payment of only Rs.200/- as premium. In the instant case, the insurance policy (Exh.RW-1/1) shows that the premium paid was Rs.240/-. The extra premium was paid to cover a lability to public risk and for an increase in the third party limit of coverage.
8. The MACT as well as the learned Single Judge concluded that the witnesses of the Appellant insurance company (particularly RW-5) were unable to explain why an enhanced premium was charged, if the liability was limited, as sought to be contended. The explanation that an old printed form was being used by the Appellant insurance company was found to be rather facile. We find no perversity in the view expressed by the MACT and the learned Single Judge.
9. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Single Judge took the dependency of the legal representatives of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month while the MACT took the dependency as Rs. 2,200/- per month. In marginally enhancing the dependency, the learned Single Judge took into account the fact that the deceased would have received a higher salary, than that suggested, in vies of 5th Central Pay Commission Report. We do not find this to be an irrelevant consideration or a perverse finding. It is a matter of public knowledge that salaries of governmental employees increased considerably after the Report of the 5th Central Pay Commission.
10. In view of our discussion above, we have no option but to dismiss both the appeals and confirm the order of the learned Single Judge. We order accordingly.