Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Fire And Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Santosh And Ors. on 22 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007ACJ865, (2006)144PLR382
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two first appeals being F.A.O. No. 953 of 1992 and 954 of 1992, as both the appeals arise out of a common Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short 'the Tribunal), with regard to accident which had occurred in the intervening night of July 8/9, 1989.
2. In the accident, which occurred in the intervening night of July 8/9, 1989, Ramesh Chander, who was aged 28 years and was working as Junior Engineer with Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation, died. The two claim petitions were filed on account of the aforesaid death of Ramesh Chander. One claim petition was filed by his widow Smt. Bimla and other claim petition was filed by the parents and the brother and sisters of the deceased Ramesh Chander. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together and tried by the learned Tribunal jointly. It was identically pleaded by the claimants in the two claim petitions that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Ram Kishan, who was driving the Canter No. PCQ 4940 was driving the aforesaid vehicle rashly and negligently and on account of the aforesaid fact truck Kit against the motor cycle being driven by the deceased Ramesh Chander. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Ramesh Chander and Mohinder Singh, who was riding on the aforesaid motor cycle died. Nothing is clear from the record as to whether any claim petition had been filed on account of the death of Mohinder Singh.
3. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence available on the record found that the driver Ram Kishan who was driving the Canter was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. On that basis, the claimants were held entitled to claim compensation from the respondents arrayed before the learned Tribunal. Although the claimants had claimed that the carry home salary of the deceased Ramesh Chander was Rs. 2,650/-per month, but on account of the salary slip produced by the claimants, the said carry home income was assessed at Rs. 2,224/- per month. Dependency of Ramesh Chander was assessed at Rs. 1,482/- per month. A multiplier of 16 was applied. Consequently, a total compensation of Rs. 2,84,000/- was held as payable by the aforesaid respondents to the claimants. Out of the total compensation Rs. 2,34,000/-was held payable to Smt. Bimla, widow of the deceased Ramesh Chander.
4. The present appeals have been filed by Oriental Fire and Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the liability to pay the compensation. The claimants have also filed cross-Objections in the two appeals, claiming further enhancement of compensation.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has only raised one argument. It has been argued by the learned Counsel that as per the proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the liability of the Insurance Company was limited in the case of Insurance policies which had been issued prior to the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has been, thus, pointed out that since the accident in question had taken place on July 8, 1989 and the new Act had come into force w.e.f. July 1, 1989, therefore, the said provision was duly attracted, and therefore, the liability of the Insurance company was limited by the statute.
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants have placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors. . On the strength of the aforesaid judgment, the learned Counsel for the claimants have argued that the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited, and therefore, the argument of the Insurance Company could not be accepted.
8. I have duly considered the aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the claimants.
9. In the case of Satpal Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court has held as under :
Under Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (for short "the Old Act") the insurance policy was not required to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons who were gratuitous passengers of that vehicle. But the proviso to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the new Act") shows that it is a recast provision by placing the erstwhile Clause (iii) as the present Clause (ii). In other words, Clause (ii) of the proviso in Section 95 (1) of the old Act is totally non-existent in the proviso to Section 147(1) of the new Act. Moreover, under Section 147(2) of the new Act there is no upper limit for the insurer regarding the amount of compensation to be awarded in respect of death or bodily injury of a victim of the accident. It is, therefore, apparent that the limit contained in the old Act has been removed and the policy should insure the liability incurred and cover injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle.
10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the argument of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are devoid of any merit and as such are liable to be dismissed.
11. I have also considered the argument of the learned Counsel for the claimants for enhancement of compensation. It has been argued by the learned Counsel that deceased Ramesh Chander was only 28 years of age, therefore, a higher multiplier should have been applied. In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while taking into consideration the dependency of the deceased and other circumstances of the case has already applied a multiplier of 16. The aforesaid multiplier cannot be held to be on the lower side and it cannot be held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate in any manner.
12. I do not find any force in the cross-objections as well.
13. Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, the learned Counsel appearing for the cross-objectors has argued that future prospects of the deceased Ramesh Chander had not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation. In my considered view, the aforesaid arguments is also without any justification. Ramesh Chander was aged 28 years. Smt. Bimla, the widow of the deceased is shown to be only 24/25 years of age. The parents of the deceased are already aged. The brothers and sisters would have their own career ahead. Smt. Bimla, would also chose to settle down in life, after becoming widow at such a young age.
14. In these circumstances, there is no scope for further enhancement.
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals as well as the cross objections are dismissed.