Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A.P. BHANGALE, J.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shivbodhan Singh & Others – Respondents
First Appeal No. 568 of 2004
Decided On : 21.8.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. D.N. Kukday, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. M.H. Pathade, Advocate for the Respondents.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 Claim of compensation. - Where deceased aged 25 years, a student of polytechnic died in a vehicular accident therefore claimants; parents entitled to total compensation of Rs. 10,24,500/-. The victim was aged less than 25 years and hence, multiplier of 17 could have been applied to the annual loss of dependency in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- making the compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,20,000/- as just and reasonable. The claimant had only claimed a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, by written submissions at Exh. 40 compensation was claimed in the sum of Rs. 10,24,500/- only which, in the background of the ruling cited, appears just and reasonable compensation payable to the parents with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation of the amount. Therefore, the impugned award needs modification in terms of enhancement of the amount to the sum of Rs. 10,24,500/- irrespective of restricted claim. Hence, just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case would be a sum of Rs. 10,24,500/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The appellant, the driver and the owner of the offending motor vehicle i.e. tanker bearing registration No. MH-31 M-7740 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount for compensation accordingly inclusive of no fault liability. The amount already deposited and withdrawn by the claimants shall be deducted from the balance amount payable. The balance amount shall be paid as directed above to the parents of deceased ’R’ in equal proportions.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 Claim of compensation. - Where victim, a student died in a vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (tractor) therefore claimants, parents entitled to compensation. The claimant lost his only son who was unmarried. The claimant had taken loan for the education of his son. To this evidence, except suggestions to deny the liability, there was no any concrete opposition to the claim. The spot panchanama indicted that Hero majestic moped, which was driven by ’R’, was by the southern corner of the road in a broken condition as a result of the accident. Police had registered crime No. 93 of 1997, under Sections 279, 338, 427 r/w Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the driver of the tanker bearing registration No. MH-31 M-7740 drove the tanker rashly and negligently and dashed Hero Moped of victim Rajesh and caused severe injuries to him. The Insurance Cover Note indicated that the offending motor vehicle was insured covering the date of the accident while the post-mortem notes indicated that the cause of death of ’R’ was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries described in the post-mortem. Thus, prima facie, it was clear that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle.
A.P. BHANGALE, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. By this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has prayed to quash and set aside the Award dated 12.3.2004 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 590 of 1997 against the appellant.
3. The facts, briefly stated are as under:-
Claimant Shivbodhan Singh is father of motor vehicle accident victim Rajesh while Shilvanti Devi/respondent No. 3 is mother of said unfortunate Rajesh. Victim Rajesh was studying in Polytechnic Institute at Nagpur. On 4.7.1997, at about 10.30 a.m. while proceeding on his Hero Moped No. MFW 1763 on the way between Somalwada via Wardha road, Rajesh had halted his moped and was standing on the extreme southern side of the tar road when offending motor vehicle i.e. Tanker bearing registration No. MH-31 M-7740 came from behind and dashed him. In the result, he fell down. The tanker ran over his leg. He sustained severe injuries. He was admitted to Medical College hospital. But he died on 5.7.1997. The incident of accident was informed to Police Station, Sonegaon. The offence was investigated and the driver of the tanker (offending motor vehicle) was prosecuted. Rajesh was a brilliant student with very good prospects in his life and according to the claimants, he would have earned a salary in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He was the only son of the claimant and respondent No. 3. They lost their support in their old age. They had claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of offending motor vehicle. Owner of the offending motor vehicle failed to file Written Statement and the Claim Petition was prosecuted against the owner without Written Statement. While the Insurer (appellant) resisted the petition and denied liability to pay compensation. Ownership as well as Insurance cover in respect of offending motor vehicle is not in dispute. The Tribunal upon evidence led found that Rajesh died on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle.
4. According to the Tribunal, Rajesh was 25 years old when he met with the motor vehicle accident and could have contributed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the family. Regarding claim in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- the Tribunal held that the claimants and parents of the victim are entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,88,500/- only. The claimant had relied upon police papers including F.I.R. Spot panchanama, Inquest panchanama, Insurance Cover note, Identity card issued by the College to Rajesh in support of the Claim Petition. No evidence was led by the owner or the driver of the offending motor vehicle. The claimant had deposed about the incident of accident, about rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending motor vehicle which resulted in the accident relying upon police papers which were marked from Exh. Nos. 32 to 35. The Tribunal held that the tanker came from behind the moped and dashed it at the extreme side of the road, which gives rise to the only inference as to rash and negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle. There was no evidence led on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company to prove that Rajesh was driving the moped in the middle of the road. The driver of the offending motor vehicle was not examined.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned Award was excessive as it was in respect of non-earning student. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, there was no evidence of brilliancy and ranking of Rajesh as student as also about his estimated future income. According to the learned Counsel for the Insurer, Award of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition was excessive and penal. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, rate of interest at 9% per annum on the ground of failure to pay the entire amount under the Award with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petitio
