Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheikh Israj And Anr. vs Smt. Rekha And Ors. on 1 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004ACJ724, 2004(1)MPHT12
Author: Shantanu Kemkar
Bench: Shantanu Kemkar
ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J.
1. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 27-3-2000 passed by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara, in Claim Case No. 47/98.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 22-9-1992 deceased Balram was going on scooter No. MP-22 B/1395. When he reached near Panchveli Mahavidyalaya, Parasia at 10.37 a.m., a Truck No. MPH 4749 driven by Chhotekhan dashed the scooter. Deceased Balram fell down and sustained grievous injuries, he was immediately taken to the hospital where he died on 23-9-1992. Anand Rao (father) and Smt. Rekha (mother) of the deceased Balram had tiled an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs, 17,45,000/- for the accidental death of their son Balram. The owner and the insurer of the Truck, involved in the accident, contested the claim. After recording the evidence the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and awarded compensation of Rs. 92,000/-to the claimant Rekha as Anandrao died during the pendency of claim petition.
3. Dissatisfied with the award claimant Rekha has filed Misc. Appeal No. 1010/2000 for enhancement of the award and also against the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company. Misc. Appeal No. 967/2000 has been filed by the owner of the Truck, challenging the award on the ground that the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated and also on the ground that the award is excessive.
4. Heard Shri Anil Lala, learned Counsel for the claimant, Shri Pramod Thakrc, learned Counsel for the owner of offending Truck and Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and persued the record.
5. The points for consideration in these appeals are whether the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated and whether the claimant has been awarded just compensation.
6. Exhibit D-l is the cover note about insurance of the Truck No. MPH 4749. This cover note bears seal of the Insurance Company and also signature of the authorised Insurer for United India Insurance Company Ltd. Owner of the said Truck, Sheikh Israj (N.A. W. 1) in his evidence has deposed that after expiry of the policy of insurance of Truck No. MPH 4749 on 4-1-1992 he went in the Branch of United India Insurance Company and deposited Rs. 1420/- in cash and obtained cover note 65557 No. Exhibit D-l. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination so as to disbelieve the evidence of Sheikh Israj. Sanjay Verma, Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, in his evidence has stated that the cover note Exhibit D-l has not been issued by their office and no record is avialable about it in their office. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the seal contained in the cover note No. 65557 Exhibit D-l appears to be seal pertaining to Chhindwara Branch of United India Insurance Company. He has not specifically denied that there was no authorised agent in the name of signatory of Exhibit D-l Parvez Qureshi. On the other hand he has stated that he has no knowledge whether in the year 1992 Parvez Qureshi was their authorised agent or not. He further deposed that presently Parvez Qureshi is not in their Branch at Chhindwara. Relying upon such evidence the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company. We are unable to endorse the appreciation of evidence as done by the Tribunal. From the evidence on record it is proved that the offending truck was insured with respondent United India Insurance Company and a cover note No. 65557 Ex. D-l to that effect was issued by the authorised agent of the Insurance Company. The evidence of Sanjay Verma witness of Insurance Company that record with respect of insurance of the said truck is not available is of no significance in view of the cover note Ex. D-1 issued by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has not specifically denied the genuineness of the said document. There is no evidence suggesting that Parvez Qureshi who has signed the cover note was not working as their agent at the relevant time or the signatures and seal of Ex. D-l are forged. On the other hand the witness has said that the signatory of the cover note is not presently working in their branch.
7. In case of Yogendra Prasad v. Vinod Kumar and Ors. (2002 ACJ 361), this Court has held that cover note is an adequate documentary proof to show that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident. In case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. White Rose (2002 ACJ 1061) Allahabad High Court has held that the Insurance Company can not escape its liability to pay the amount once a cover note is issued. The Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation on the basis of cover note issued by its agent and negligence or error of agent does not affect, the liability of the Insurer.
8. In view of above legal position and also on the basis of the evidence available on record we hold that the offending truck was insured with the United India Insurance Company on the date of accident and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
9. As regards quantum of the compensation, we find that the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/- per year which deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- per year as the notional income in case of non earning person according to the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has to be taken as Rs. 15000/- per year. The Tribunal has adopted the unit system for calculating the compensation and has taken two units for the deceased and two units for his mother Smt. Rekha. Thus calculating on the basis of unit system dependency of Rekha would be Rs. 7500/- per year. The age of deceased was found to be between 22 to 25 years. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 15, which we do not find to be improper. Adopting the multiplier of 15 the compensation amount would come to Rs. 1,12,500/-. In addition to this the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses. Thus the total award payable to the claimant would be Rs. 1,17,000/- with interest at the rare of 9% per annum.
10. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed in part, the award is modified to the extent as mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs.