Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramji Lal And Ors. vs Omkar Lal And Ors. on 7 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004ACJ238
JUDGMENT S.S. Jha, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by claimants for enhancement of compensation. On 27.8.1989, a young boy, namely, Ghanshyam met With an accident and lost his life. The deceased was travelling in tractor No. CIG 4327 which was driven by respondent No. 1 Omkar Lal. It is alleged that tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into accident and caused death of Ghanshyam. Application for compensation of Rs. 2,60,700 was filed before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena, which was registered as Motor Accident Case No. 60 of 1989. The tractor was insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company. Claims Tribunal has held that Ghanshyam was sitting in the tractor and on account of rash and negligent driving, Ghanshyam met with an accident and died on the spot but Tribunal had assessed compensation of Rs. 25,000 only.
2. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the Claims Tribunal for arriving at the figure of Rs. 25,000. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Rs. 25,000 is a meagre amount for grant of compensation. Claims Tribunal has not at all applied its mind in determining the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the Claims Tribunal has committed error in exonerating the insurance company. Once the finding is recorded that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2, the Tribunal ought to have been held that the insurance company is also liable to pay the damages.
3. The question of liability of insurance company has been recently determined by Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), has been overruled. In this case, it is held that owner of vehicle carrying passenger must pay premium for covering the risk of passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. While considering the effect of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and previous Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it is held that in the earlier Act, so far as the employees of owner of motor vehicle are concerned, an insurance policy was not required to be taken in relation to their liability other than arising in terms of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On the other hand, proviso (ii) appended to Section 95 of 1939 Act enjoined a statutory liability upon the owner of the vehicle to take out an insurance policy to cover the liability in respect of a person who was travelling in a vehicle pursuant to a contract of employment. The legislature has consciously not inserted the said provision in 1988 Act. It is contended that the ratio of judgment is that unless extra premium is paid, insurance company is not bound to pay compensation for a party not insured by the owner of vehicle.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the judgment relates to the vehicle which carries passenger or a transport vehicle but it does not include the tractor. Therefore, above judgment of Apex Court is not applicable to the present case. Once, it is admitted by insurance company that the vehicle was insured with them, then they are liable to pay compensation.
5. We have considered rival arguments of the parties. We have perused the insurance policy filed by the insurance company, which is exhibited as Exh. D-1. In the policy, it is specifically mentioned that a tractor is insured for the use of agriculture and forest purposes. It is further mentioned that the policy does not cover:
"(i) Use for hire or reward or for racing, pace making, reliability trial or speed testing;
(ii) Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted by law."
Thus, vehicle was insured for the purpose of agriculture and forest and it was not insured for any other purpose.
6. From the evidence on record, it is established that the deceased and others were travelling in the tractor. The tractor was plied between Kailaras to Pahadgarh, where it met with an accident. From the evidence of Omkar Lal, NAW 1, he has deposed that he was plying tractor between Kailaras to Pahadgarh when it met with an accident. This witness had denied that Ghanshyam was a co-passenger in the said tractor but he has deposed that Ghanshyam was moving on the road and came under the wheel and died. Ballabh also suffered injuries. He remained firm in his cross-examination and he denied the suggestion that he along with Ballabh and Ghanshyam were not travelling in the tractor. Similar is the statement as given by Ballabh Das, AW 3.
7. Claims Tribunal on this evidence has held that Ghanshyam was travelling in the tractor when it overturned. The finding is supported by evidence and does not require any interference.
8. Since Ghanshyam was travelling in the tractor and as per the contents in the policy and the judgment, in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating insurance company. From the ratio of aforesaid judgment, the finding of Claims Tribunal that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, is upheld.
9. On perusal of award, no reasons have been assigned by Tribunal regarding determining the amount of compensation. Tribunal without discussing any material on record, has fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000 only. When finding is recorded that young boy of 14 years died in an accident, it was the duty of Tribunal to assess compensation after assigning reasons but no reasons have been assigned for arriving at the quantum of compensation of Rs. 25,000.
10. From the evidence on record, it has been established that the age of deceased was only 14 years at the time of accident. It is contended that at the time of accident and till date of award the Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act determining the quantum of compensation have not come into force. However, considering the facts of the case, it can safely be presumed that a boy shall start earning after attaining the age of 18 years. There is no evidence regarding income or of the social status of the parents of deceased. Accident occurred in the year 1989, therefore, the deceased was able to earn on attaining the age of 18 years, i.e., in the year 1993. Since there is nothing on record, it may safely be presumed that deceased was in a position to earn minimum wages fixed by Collector. In the year 1993, the minimum wages were around Rs. 40 per day and considering the fact he may have worked for 25 days in a month, therefore, his monthly income can be safely arrived at Rs. 1,000 and yearly income is calculated at Rs. 12,000. Out of this amount of Rs. 12,000, 1/3rd amount can be deducted towards his personal expenses and the remaining amount of Rs. 8,000 was going to be spent on the appellants. Appellant No. 1 Ramji Lal was 45 years of age at the time of accident and he could only become dependent upon the deceased at the age of 49 years. Therefore, multiplier is to be applied on the basis of age of parents which was 49 years.
11. In the set facts of the case, it would be safe to apply multiplier of 13 to determine the compensation. Appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,04,000 and funeral expenses of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 for love and affection. Therefore, appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,09,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application.
12. It is contended that the amount of Rs. 25,000 towards no fault liability received by the claimants has been directed to be refunded to the insurance company. Therefore, award of Claims Tribunal is modified to the effect that the amount of Rs. 25,000 paid by insurance company, shall be adjusted towards the awarded amount and the insurance company shall recover the said amount with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the owner of vehicle from the date of deposit.
13. Appeal succeeds in part and is disposed of without any orders as to the costs.