Madhya Pradesh High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhanumati Devi And Ors. on 17 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2005ACJ728
JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in M.V.C. No. 293 of 1990.
2. The claimants are legal heirs of Ram Vriksha. The claim petition seeks compensation of Rs. 12,00,000 on the death of Ram Vriksha, husband of Bhanumati Devi and father of four children. The accident had occurred on 1.12.1989 at 9 p.m., when Ram Vriksha going on his scooter, was hit by tractor bearing registration No. MKB 2493. He was shifted to the hospital where he died on the next day.
3. Allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor driver Abdul Rashid. Abdul Rashid and Abdul Wahid Khan submit that the deceased was dead drunk and was driving the scooter rashly and negligently. Accordingly, he hit the tractor and sustained the injuries. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. alleges that the deceased contributed to the accident. He did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the scooter. The liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 1,50,000, the trolley was not insured. On this ground, it is submitted that the claim should be dismissed.
4. The Claims Tribunal framed 9 issues in this case on the pleadings of the parties. Evidence was produced and parties were heard before award was announced.
5. Finding of the Claims Tribunal is that claimants are legal heirs of the deceased, who died in the accident on 1.12.1989 when tractor bearing registration No. MKB 2493, driven rashly and negligently, hit the deceased, but negligence of deceased has not been proved. He was receiving wages of Rs. 1,932 per month plus Rs. 5,638.62 as bonus for the year 1988-89 and the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and claim of the insurance company that its liability was limited to Rs. 1,50,000 was not proved. Similarly, the defence that the driver of the tractor did not possess driving licence, therefore, committed violation of conditions of insurance policy, was also not proved. Finding with regard to the claim of the insurance company that the trolley with the tractor was not insured, is also rejected, as not proved.
6. Through this appeal, award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, has been challenged. Besides, the claimants have also filed cross-objection, M(C)P No. 4946 of 2002 for enhancement of compensation.
7. Record of the case was examined and counsel for the parties, heard. The first contention of Mrs. Amrit Ruprah that the trolley was not insured, therefore, claim is untenable, may be examined. The Claims Tribunal has held that this defence is not proved. This being the finding of fact, does not deserve to be set aside. Even otherwise, our attention has been drawn by Mr. Harpreet Ruprah to certificate of insurance, Exh. NA-2 and it is submitted that the trolley is also insured. Mrs. Amrit Ruprah forcefully contends that from the carbon copy of the certificate of insurance, Exh. NA-1, it is clear that the trolley has not been insured. We fail to appreciate this contention, reason being, that Exh. NA-1, is not carbon copy of Exh. NA-2. Further, Exh. NA-2 mentions insurance of trolley as well. The submission that it has been written in hand instead of being typed like other parts of the document, cannot be accepted. It appears that the handwriting is of the official who has not only incorporated this entry, but also initialled the cutting in token of attestation. This has not only been done at the place of entry with regard to the trolley, but also at the place of address of Abdul Wahid. The cuttings have been initialled at all places by the same person, meaning thereby, with regard to the words written in type. Comparison of initials shows that this has been done by the official of the insurance company. It is not the case that all the entries in the certificates of insurance have to be typed and no entry can be inserted in hand. The officer of company V.S. Mohti, NAW-1, nowhere says in his deposition that the initials at places on this document are not of official of the insurance company. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that appellant has failed to substantiate the defence set up by it and it can safely be said that the trolley attached with the tractor, was insured.
8. Having come to the conclusion aforesaid on the crucial question, we turn to examine the submission of Mr. Harpreet Ruprah that the compensation has not justly been awarded, meaning thereby, the salary of the deceased has not been taken into consideration, while settling the dependency. Mr. Harpreet Ruprah refers to the certificate on the record, Exh. P-1. We find substance in the contention so raised. Perusal of the salary certificate demonstrates that the deceased was receiving an annual salary of Rs. 31,594.98 inclusive of bonus, reward and L.T.C. However, there is difficulty in including reward and L.T.C. in the annual income of the deceased, but bonus can be included. This way, after making deduction of Rs. 3,459, the annual salary of deceased comes to Rs. 28,135. Making deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenditure, annual dependency comes to Rs. 19,757. Multiplied by 15, being the suitable multiplier after taking into consideration the age, above 41 of the deceased, the compensation will come to Rs. 2,96,355 plus Rs. 7,000 towards loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate, Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium to the wife, the compensation comes to Rs. 3,12,855.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Cross-objections are allowed. Claimants are awarded compensation of Rs. 3,12,855 (rupees three lakh twelve thousand eight hundred and fifty-five) carrying interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of application till payment, within two months.
Costs on parties.