- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Secretary Ministry Of Communications Government Of India, New Delhi v. Amar Kaur And Others .
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion begins with the heading "S.D Bajaj, J." and concerns a fatal accident in which Mansa Ram (deceased), employed as a Palledar by Barara (Barers) Marketing-cum-Processing Co-operative Society Ltd. and working on its truck No. HRA 9998, struck a loosely hanging telephone wire while sitting on the truck's tool-box on 2 June 1981 (about 9:30 P.M.). He fell into the body of the truck and died instantaneously (the post-mortem recorded brain injury leading to shock and haemorrhage).
The deceased was survived by his widow Smt. Amar Kaur and five children (two daughters: Jaswant Kaur and Raj Kaur; three sons: Nirmal Singh, Swarn Singh and Kulbir Singh), the children being minors. The widow filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 14 on 19 September 1981 claiming Rs. 40,000 on behalf of herself and as guardian of the minors. The petition named the Co-operative Society (owner of the truck), the National Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer of the truck) and the Union of India (owner of the telephone wire) as respondents.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, by award dated 7 February 1983, awarded Rs. 38,400 as compensation (computed by treating the deceased's monthly contribution as Rs. 300 and applying a multiplier of 16). Liability was apportioned: half (Rs. 19,200) payable by the Union of India and the remaining half jointly and severally by the Society and the Insurance Company.
The Union of India, the Co-operative Society and the Insurance Company appealed to this Court: F.A.O. No. 390 of 1983 (Union of India) and F.A.O. No. 392 of 1983 (Co-operative Society and Insurance Company). Both appeals were heard together and dismissed. The decretal signature at the end of the opinion appears as "Sd/- S.P. Goyal, J."
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the existence of a loosely hanging telephone wire that struck the deceased and caused his fall and death was proved.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence of the deceased's income and age to justify the Tribunal's assessment and calculation of compensation.
- Whether the Union of India could be held liable for a share of the compensation in the absence of an expert medical opinion expressly linking death to impact with the loose telephone wire.
- Whether the National Insurance Company could challenge the award on its merits when it had not disputed the factum of the accident in its written statement.
- Whether the Tribunal could award an amount in excess of the monetary sum formally claimed (issue raised by the Insurance Company regarding computation and apportionment of liability relative to the claimed amount).
Arguments of the Parties
National Insurance Company (as stated in the opinion)
- Contended that because the claim by the legal heirs was limited to Rs. 40,000, the Tribunal could not award a higher amount (the Insurance Company argued the insured's joint-and-several liability should have been based on one-third of Rs. 40,000 only).
- Noted in the opinion: the Insurance Company had not disputed the fact of the accident in its written statement; the Court cited authority that an insurer who does not dispute the accident is not entitled to challenge the award on merits.
Union of India (as stated in the opinion)
- Argued that the existence of a loose telephone wire which struck the deceased had not been proved.
- Argued there was no evidence before the Tribunal regarding the deceased's income which could support the compensation calculation.
- Argued that the Union could not be saddled with liability in the absence of an expert medical opinion that the death resulted from impact with the loose telephone wire on the public highway.
The opinion does not set out any distinct, separate arguments advanced by the Co-operative Society beyond its participation in the joint appeal with the Insurance Company.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Angoori Devi, 1987 A.C.J. 942 | Where an insurance company does not dispute the factum of the accident, it is not entitled to challenge the award on merits. | The Court relied on this authority to reject the Insurance Company's attempt to challenge the Tribunal's award on merits, noting the insurer had not disputed the occurrence of the accident in its written statement. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in a structured manner addressing each contested point raised by the respondents:
-
Existence of the loose telephone wire and causation:
- The Court accepted the testimony of Girdhari Lal (driver, P.W.3) who described the deceased sitting on the tool-box, being struck by a loose telephone wire, losing balance and falling into the truck; the driver immediately stopped and took the deceased to hospital.
- The Court also relied on the evidence of Ghasita Singh (one of the Society's directors, P.W.2) who regularly visited Barara and observed low and loose telephone wires (two wires about 6–7 inches lower than others; wires about 8½ feet above road level).
- These assertions were corroborated by entries in Daily Diary Report No. 32 of Police Station Mullana (Exhibit P.1).
- The Court regarded denials by the Telephone Inspector Sushil Kumar (R.W.1) and Lineman Babu Ram (R.W.2) as self-exculpatory (because they would be responsible for maintaining the lines) and therefore not persuasive.
- The post-mortem report indicated a contusion on the forehead (3 cm × 2 cm) and recorded death due to shock and hemorrhage from brain injury, which the Court found consistent with impact from the loose wire and the oral testimony.
-
Evidence of income and assessment of compensation:
- The Court accepted the widow Smt. Amar Kaur's evidence that the deceased earned Rs. 50 per day and the corroboration by Ghasita Singh that income rose in season and fell in off-season.
- The Tribunal had assessed the deceased's earning at Rs. 400 per month (noting this was about Rs. 50 more than the then minimum wage for unskilled labour in the State of Haryana of Rs. 350 per month) and concluded the deceased spent about Rs. 100 per month on himself, leaving a monthly family contribution of Rs. 300 (annual contribution Rs. 3,600).
- The Court found that cogent evidence supported the Tribunal's assessment, including the unrebutted deposition of the widow as to age (38 years) which the Tribunal relied upon to apply the multiplier of 16.
-
Requirement of medical expert opinion for linking the death to the loose wire:
- The Court relied on the post-mortem report (No. 2-A/2/81 dated 5 June 1981) prepared by the medical officer of Civil Hospital, Ambala, showing a forehead contusion and the medical opinion that death resulted from shock and haemorrhage due to brain injury.
- The oral testimony of the driver corroborated the medical findings. The Court held that these pieces of evidence together proved that death resulted from impact with the loosely hanging telephone wire and the consequent fall.
- The Court also noted procedural points: although counsel for claimants failed to formally tender the post-mortem report into evidence after admission by the Government Pleader, that failure did not vitiate the contents of the report as recorded.
-
Insurer's challenge that award exceeded claimed amount:
- The Court rejected the Insurance Company's argument that the insurer's liability should have been limited to one-third of the claimed Rs. 40,000, pointing out the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 38,400 which is less than the amount claimed.
- The Court observed that the claimants had limited the stated claim to Rs. 40,000 because of court-fee constraints and poverty; the Court viewed the Tribunal's award as a legitimate welfare-oriented compensation and upheld it.
- Separately, and decisively, the Court noted that since the Insurance Company did not dispute the accident in its written statement, it was not entitled to challenge the award on merits, citing New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Angoori Devi.
After considering the oral testimony, documentary evidence (Daily Diary Report and post-mortem), and the Tribunal's findings on income and age, the Court concluded the Tribunal's factual findings and computation of compensation were supported by evidence.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Both F.A.O. Nos. 390 and 392 of 1983 are dismissed with costs.
Implications:
- The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 38,400 stands and is to be paid as apportioned by that Tribunal (half by the Union of India (Rs. 19,200) and the remaining half jointly and severally by the Co-operative Society and the National Insurance Company Ltd.).
- The Court upheld the Tribunal's factual findings on the existence of a loosely hanging telephone wire, causation of death, the deceased's age and income, and the computation method (annual family contribution multiplied by 16).
- The Court applied existing authority to hold that an insurer which does not dispute the fact of the accident in its pleadings is not entitled to attack the award on merits; that precedent was relied upon but the Court did not purport to lay down any new legal doctrine in the judgment.
- No broader precedent was created by this decision; its direct effect is the dismissal of the appeals and the maintenance of the Tribunal's award and apportionment between the parties as recorded.
R.M.S
Appeal dismissed.
This summary is strictly based on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond the text.
S.D Bajaj, J.:— Mansa Ram deceased was serving as Palledar with Barers Marketing-cum-Processing Co-operative Society Ltd., on its truck No. HRA 9998. The deceased was being paid by the Society per bag rate for the work of loading and unloading of its truck aforesaid. On 2nd June, 1981 around 930 P.M while the truck was returning to Bararu after unloading of fertilizer bags by the deceased at the Sales Depot Saha, deceased Mansa Ram was sitting on the tool-box of the truck aforesaid. There was a telephone wire hanging loose on the way. Mansa Ram struck against it while sitting on the tool box of the truck and through the impact fell down in the body of the truck and died instantaneously.
2. The deceased is survived by his widow Smt. Amar Kaur, two daughters named Jaswant Kaur and Raj Kaur and three sons named Nirmal Singh, Swarn Singh and Kulbir Singh Ail the three sons and two daughters of the deceased being minors. Smt. Amar Kaur widow of the deceased filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 14 on 19th September, 198! for herself and as natural guardian of her minor children for the recovery of Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand only) as compensation for the death of the deceased. Deceased was stated therein to be 38 years of age at the time of his death and was given out to be earning Rs. 1,500/- per mensum as Palledar of the Cooperative Society owning the truck. The truck owned by respondent No. 1 Barara Marketing-cum-Processing Co-operative Society Ltd. being insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd, and the telephone wire hanging loose on the way being the property of the Union of India, the Society, the Insurance Company and the Union of India were impleaded as respondents in the claim petition.
3. Vide award dated 7th February, 1983 learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, awarded Rs. 38,400/- (rupees thirty eight thousand and four hundred only) as compensation to the claimants aforesaid. Out of it half viz. Rs. 19,200/- (rupees nineteen thousand and two hundred only) was made payable by the Union of India and the other half jointly and severally by the Society and the Insurance Company. The amount of compensation was worked out by the learned Tribunal on the basis of Rs. 300/- per mensum being regarded as the contribution of the deceased to the family exchequer and by multiplying his annual family contribution by 16 multiplier. The deceased was found to be spending Rs. 100/- per mensum on himself out of his meagre income of Rs. 400/- per mensum
4. Feeling aggrieved from the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 7th February, 1983, all the three respondents viz. (i) the Union of India; (ii) Co-operative Society owning the truck; and (iii) the Insurance Company have come up in appeal to this Court. F.A.O No. 390 of 1983 is filed by the Union of India and F.A.O No. 392 of 1983 is jointly filed by the Co-operative Society and the Insurance Company. Both the appeals being against the same award, have been heard and are being disposed of together.
5. Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd., urged that the claim filed by the legal heirs of the deceased being of Rs. 40,000/- only, learned Tribunal could not award a sum of Rs. 57/00/- as compensation and work out the proportionate one third joint and several liability of the insured society and the Insurance Company at Rs. 19,200/-. According to him, this liability should have been ⅓rd of Rs. 40,000/- only. The argument is wholly bereft of any merit. The amount awarded is only Rs. 38,400/- as against the claimed amount Rs. 40,000/- which is obviously in excess of it. The claimants are poorest of the poor and had restricted their claim to Rs. 40,000/- because in the State of Haryana only this amount of compensation could then be claimed on a court fee of Rs. 10/- (rupees ten only). For making a claim beyond this amount they had to pay ad-valorem court fee which they could illafford. In a welfare State how shall a widow with five minor dependent children be able to carry on and maintain them and herself with this meagre amount of compensation is beyond our comprehension. All the same it does not lie in the mouth of the National Insurance Company Ltd., to urge that even this much amount of compensation should not have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Meagre social security award, legitimately made, being less than the amount claimed is in every way legal and is consequently upheld.
6. Even otherwise a reference to the written statement filed by National Insurance Company in this case reveals that the factum of alleged accident was not disputed by it. Once it has not disputed the accident, the Insurance Company is legally not entitled to challenge the award on merits. In New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Angoori Devi . 1987 A.C.J 942., it was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B Wad of the Delhi High Court, “The factum of the accident is not disputed by the appellant and indeed as an Insurance Company they cannot challenge the award on merits”
7. On behalf of the Union of India three fold submissions have been made. Firstly it ha been urged that the existence of a telephone wire hanging loose on the way which may have struck the deceased and resulted in his forced fall through the impact from the tool-box into the body of the truck and instantaneous death thereby has not been proved Secondly, it was urged that there was no evidence before the learned Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased at the time of his death which could form the basis for working out the awarded amount of compensation and thirdly the Union of India could not be foisted with the liability for payment of proportionate one third amount of compensation in the absence of expert medical opinion that death of Mansa Ram was the outcome of impact with loosely hanging telephone wire on the public highway None of the three arguments made on behalf of the Union of India, as would appear from the adsariatim discussion hereinafter, has any merit in it.
(i) Existence of telephone wire hanging loose by the side of the road which struck against the deceased and resulted in his forced fall into the body of the truck from the top of the toolbox and his instantaneous death thereby has been asserted by Girdhari Lal driver P.V 3 who states that deceased Mansa Ram was sitting on the tool-box of the truck and a telephone wire hanging loose had hit him as a result of which Mansa Ram lost balance and fell inside the body of the truck, that the witness stopped his truck on being attracted by the alarm, took Mansa Ram to the hospital wherein the deceased breathed his last on the following day.
Shri Ghasita Singh, one of the Directors of the Co operative Society arrayed as respondent No. 1. also states that he was visiting Barara regularly and observed in the course of his visit that on the way telephone wires were very low and also loose. In reply to a question put to him by the learned Government Pleader the witness stated that two of the wires which were loose were about 6 to 7 inches lower than the other wires. The wires were about 8-½ feet from the road level in height. Assertions made by the two witnesses aforesaid in this regard are duly mentioned in Daily Diary Report No. 32 recorded in Police Station, Mullana, copy Exhibit P. 1.
Interested denial of the existence of any loosely hanging wire on the way which may have resulted in alleged impact fall into the body of the truck and resultant death of Mama Ram deceased by Telephone Inspector Sushil Kumar R.W 1 and Lineman Babu Ram R.W 2 does not detract in any way from the assertions made by Ghasita Singh P.W 2, Girdhari Lal P.W 3 and the recitals in D.D.R Exhibit P. 1. Both these witnesses would have themselves been taken to task by the Union of India respondent No. 2 if they had not come forth with the assertions aforesaid because they are collectively responsible for maintaining and keeping the telephone line/wires intact and in order. Self-exculpatory assertions made by the two witnesses aforesaid have thus to be ignored.
It is thus fully proved from the depositions of the two witnesses aforesaid and the version given out by Girdhari Lal P.W 3 in D.D.R No. 32 (copy Exhibit P. 1) immediately after the occurrence that Mansa Ram had struck against the loose telephone wire hanging on the way and had fallen down from the tool-box into the body of the truck aforesaid and that it was this forcible fall through impact with loose telephone wire which resulted in instantaneous death of the deceased. In the post-mortem report also the cause of death is given out to be shock and haemorrhage due to brain injury received on forehead, presumably at the time of impact with loose hanging telephone wire.
(ii). Smt. Amar Kaur P.W 1, widow of the deceased, nodoubt asserted before the learned trial court that deceased Mansa Ram was earning Rs. 50/- per day while employed as Palledar with the society arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the claim petition. Ghasita Singh P.W 2 stood by her while asserting that the income of the deceased touched even still higher figure during the season and stated that in off season the deceased earned much less and was at intervals unemployed. It was in view of these assertions that the learned Tribunal assessed the earning of the deceased at Rs. 400/- per mensum, nearly Rs. 50/- ptrmensum more than the minimum wage rate for unskilled labourers at Rs. 350/- per mensum. There was thus cogent evidence before the learned trial court in this regard. Regarding assessment of age of the deceased at 38 years at the time of his death also learned trial court has given sound reasoning for relying upon the unrebutted deposition of the widow of the deceased to reach this conclusion. The compensation due to legal heirs of the deceased has, therefore, been correctly worked out by the learned Tribunal by multiplying his annual contribution of Rs. 3600/- to the family exchequer by 16.
(iii) Medical evidence of death of the deceased is available on record in post-mortem report No. 2-A/2/81 dated 5th June, 1981 collected by H.C Nanak Singh No. 754 from the medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Ambala. As per entries in column No. 4 the impact resulted in a contusion of the size of 3 cms. × 2 cms. on forehead of the deceased and in the opinion of the doctor conducting the postmortem death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the brain injury. Oral assertions made by driver Girdhari Lal P.W 2 support the expert medical opinion out right. Failure of the learned counsel for the claimants to tender the post-mortem report into the evidence after its admission by the Government Pleader on 26th November, 1982 does not in any way take away from its contents. Death of the deceased through impact with loose hanging telephone wire and resultant fall into the body of the truck is thus proved.
8. In result both F.A.O Nos. 290 and 392 of 1983 fail and are dismissed with costs.
Sd/- S.P Goyal, J.
R.M.S
Appeal dismissed.
Alert