United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljeet Kaur And Others

Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):— These three appeals filed against the award dated 06.09.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, awarding compensation of Rs. 19,65,500/- on account of death of Ranjodh Singh, aged 50 years in an accident which took place on 25.04.2012, are being decided by this common judgment.

2. As per the case set up by the claimants, he (Ranjodh) was going on a motorcycle bearing No. PB-27B-2594 from village Gadhera to Sirhind, when three boys on motorcycle no. PB-23G-4198(T) hit into him while driving motorcycle rashly and negligently which resulted in his death. The Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle No. PB-23G-4198. It was further held that the driver being a minor could not hold a driving licence and consequently gave recovery rights to the Insurance Company. Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that once it was proved that the driver was a minor, it could not have been saddled even with the primary liability and should have been absolved.

3. Mr. Paul S. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company very fairly pleaded that since no stay was granted and the amount was ultimately paid, his appeal bearing FAO No. 5640-2013 has become infructuous.

4. Ordered accordingly.

5. As regards the driver/owner, his appeal bearing No. 2735 of 2014 is primarily with regard to the quantum of compensation, though he has also raised a ground that the recovery rights could not have been given.

6. Counsel for the owner/driver is not in a position to challenge the grant of recovery rights because admittedly he was a minor and did not have a driving licence. Thus, the only claim left as regards the owner/driver is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The third appeal bearing FAO No. 1737-2014 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement and, therefore, these appeals have to be dealt with together.

7. The claim of the owner/driver is that the amount of family pension has to be deducted from the compensation. There is no warrant for this proposition of law. Consequently, the same is rejected because family pension would be paid to the claimants even if the death had been natural. In the circumstances, FAO No. 2735 filed by the driver/owner is rejected.

8. As regards the claim for enhancement, the first ground raised by the counsel is that in view of the proposition of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) RCR Civil 1009, 15% had to be granted on account of future prospects.

9. His next argument is that under the settled proposition in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) total amount of Rs. 70,000/- had to be paid under the conventional head whereas Rs. 25,000/- has been paid.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has accepted these arguments.

11. The rate of interest and management shall remain unchallenged. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the claimants bearing No. 1737 of 2014 is allowed in the above terms and the remaining two appeals are dismissed.

12. A photocopy of the order be placed on the files of connected appeals numbered above.

13. Since the main cases have been decided, pending CMs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.