Prem Bai And Another v. Ramesh And Others

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Bhawani Singh, C.J:— This appeal is directed against the award dated 5th November, 1993 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M.C.C No. 41 of 1993.

2. Claimants are widow and son of deceased Sattulal. Deceased Sattulal was truck driver in Truck No. CIQ 755. He was going from Indore to Sagar and when he reached near village Kharkhedi at about 1.00 a.m vehicle No. MIB 7246, driven rashly and negligently by respondent Ramesh, owned by Shri Kuldeep Singh and insured with Oriental Insurance Company dashed against this vehicle. As a result of this accident, Sattulal received injuries due to which he died on the spot.

3. Consequently, claim petition was filed against respondents for compensation of Rs. 2,20,000.00/-. Allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. MIB 7246 by driver Ramesh, otherwise the accident would not have taken place. The claimants were dependents on the deceased for survival. The deceased was earning Rs. 3000.00/- per month plus Rs. 30.00/- daily allowance.

4. Respondents, owner and driver of the vehicle did not file any statement before the Tribunal. Insurance Company has admitted that truck No. MIB 7246 was insured with it. Rest of the allegations have been denied. It was contended that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation has been limited to Rs. 1,50,000.00/-. It is also pointed out that accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased Sattulal and not because of the driver of MIB 7246. With respect to age, it is pointed out that the deceased was not 45 year old nor was he earning Rs. 3000.00/- per month.

5. The Tribunal has accepted the case of the claimants that accident took place on 30-4-1989 at about 1.10 a.m when truck No. MIB 7246 driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the truck CIQ 755 resulting in the accident, injuries to deceased Sattulal and his death as a result thereof. It is also held that the claimants are legal heirs of Sattulal. It is also held that the truck No. MIB 7246 was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Ultimately, against claim of Rs. 2,20,000.00/-, compensation of Rs. 90,000.00/- has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. This award does not satisfy the claimants, therefore, they have prayed for enhancement of compensation.

6. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Claims Tribunal has not assessed the compensation reasonably resulting in non-payment of just compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000.00/- per month in addition to Rs. 30.00/- per day by way of allowance. The Tribunal disbelieved the version and pegged the income of the deceased at Rs. 1000.00/- per month and ignored the receipt of Rs. 30.00/- per day by way of allowance. Learned counsel contends that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and against the evidence on record. Further contention is that interest at the rate of 15% is admissible, therefore, interest paid by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum is not correct. Another submission of the learned Counsel is that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards consortium, funeral expenses, loss to the estate and loss of life expectancy.

7. The matter has been examined and record perused. It may be true that the claimants have stated that the income of deceased was Rs. 3000.00/- per month and he was also receiving Rs. 30.00/- per day by way of allowance from the owner of the vehicle. Statement of Narayan Singh, owner of the vehicle No. CIQ 755 is that the deceased was being paid Rs. 1000.00/- per month plus Rs. 30.00/- per day as daily allowance. Hence, the approach of the Tribunal in not accepting the version of owner of the vehicle that he was paying daily allowance to Sattulal is not justified and is liable to be rejected. Consequently, it is held that the deceased was earning Rs. 1000.00/- per month and allowance of Rs. 30.00/- per day. Out of this amount, he must be spending Rs. 30.00/- on himself, leaving Rs. 1000.00/- to the family. This way, the yearly dependency would come to Rs. 12,000.00/- per annum.

8. At the time of death, Sattulal was 45 year old. Proper multiplier in this case would be 15. Therefore, the compensation payable to the claimants in this case comes to Rs. 1,80,000.00/- (Rs. 12,000.00/- × 15). In addition to this amount, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 5,000.00/- by way of consortium, Rs. 2000.00/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2500.00/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000.00/- towards loss of expectancy of life, taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 1,99,500.00/- (Rupees One lac ninety nine thousand five hundred only).

9. Further question to be examined is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the total amount of compensation or the liability is limited to Rs. 1,50,000.00/- as stated in the written statement. Except for taking this plea in the written statement, no effort has been made to prove it. It is found that there is photo copy of the insurance policy on record of this case but it cannot be said that it pertains to the vehicle involved in the case. It is not proved in evidence. Mere placement of photo copy of the Insurance Policy on the case file is not enough. Party depending on it must prove it in accordance with law. This has not been done. Therefore, apart from recording that it is not proved that the Insurance Policy pertains to the vehicle involved in the accident. Policy has not been proved, therefore, liability of the Insurance Company is to make payment of total compensation awarded in this case along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment. Compensation awarded be paid within two months.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in terms aforesaid, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.

Appeal allowed.