Patna High Court
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. ... vs Sayade Bibi And Ors. on 25 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006ACJ2698, AIR 2006 (NOC) 338 (PAT), 2006 A I H C 138, (2005) 3 PAT LJR 636, (2007) 2 ACC 805, (2006) 4 ACJ 2698, (2005) 3 BLJ 248
JUDGMENT S.N. Hussain, J.
1. I.A. No. 1499 of 2004 has been filed for condoning the delay in filing of this civil revision. From the statements made in this application I am satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and interlocutory application is allowed.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the Branch Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd., which was opposite party No. 2 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 15 of 2001 filed by the opposite parties of this civil revision confining it under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) for payment of compensation on structured formula basis due to the death of Ish Mohammad, husband of opposite party No. 1 and father of minor opposite party No. 2 caused by rash and negligent driving of the truck owned by opposite party No. 5 and driven by his driver.
3. The revision-petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.8.2002 passed in the aforesaid case, by which the learned Sixth Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chapra held both the opposite parties of the claim case, namely, the revision-petitioner and the owner of the vehicle (opposite party No. 5) jointly and severally responsible for making payment of the amount of compensation Rs. 2,22,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim application, i.e., 19.2.2001 to claimants by way of depositing the said amount partly in a nationalised bank and partly for day-to-day expenses, as per detail given in the said order.
4. The admitted fact of this case is that the truck of opposite party No. 5 collided with the jeep and the deceased, who was passenger of the jeep, died and his dependants filed the claim case against the owner of the truck (opposite party No. 5) and its insurer (petitioner). The income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 1,500 per month, which comes to Rs. 18,000 per annum and if 1/3rd is deducted from it as his personal expenses, the dependency of his heirs, namely, the claimants, would be Rs. 12,000 per annum. Hence, the provision of Section 163-A of the Act was rightly applied in the case as Section 166 thereof was not attracted. In said circumstances, the court below was quite justified in applying the multiplier of 16 in view of the provision of Section 163-A of the Act and adding to it the loss of consortium and loss to the estate at the rate of Rs. 15,000 each, rightly held that claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,22,000.
5. It is well settled that Section 163-A of the Act is a social security provision, providing a distinct scheme for those whose income is up to Rs. 40,000 per annum. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepal Girishbai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 ACJ 934 (SC). So far the question of responsibility of accident is concerned, the police, during investigation, specifically found that the driver of truck in question was guilty of rash and negligent driving due to which the accident happened and submitted charge-sheet against him, whereas no negligence of the driver of the jeep, in which the deceased was travelling, was found. Hence insurer of the truck, namely, the revisioner, was rightly held responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also challenged the procedure adopted by the learned court below, but from the materials on record and from the impugned order it is quite apparent that the lower court had rightly adopted the summary procedure prescribed under the provisions of Bihar Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961 and decided the matter in accordance with law considering all the relevant issues and points, whereafter it has rightly arrived at definite findings on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. The question of non-joinder of the owner and the driver of the jeep was also considered by the court below but since no negligence on their part was found after investigation, there was no occasion for impleading them as parties to the claim case. Furthermore, since the driving licence of the driver of the truck was not produced by the owner (opposite party No. 5) it was rightly presumed that opposite party No. 5 was getting his truck driven by a person having no valid driving licence against whom charge-sheet has been submitted by the police. Hence these points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are also without any merit.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no illegality or material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed.