Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
National Insurance Company Limited
Versus
Abha Sinha
Appeal from Original Order No. 509 of 1991 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 27, 1998
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 149 - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - DRIVER'S LICENCE - VALIDITY - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - ASSESSMENT - MULTIPLIER THEORY - INTEREST - RATE.
Fact of the Case:
A mini bus met with an accident resulting in the death of the deceased, an army officer. The claimants, widow and children of the deceased, filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 13,16,755. The insurance company appealed against the award, contending that the driver had no valid driving licence and the compensation was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation as the driver had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The court also held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and reduced it to Rs. 10,66,755. The court further held that the claimants were entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation from the date of judgment till the date of payment.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation when the driver had no valid driving licence? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation as the driver had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The court noted that the driver was authorized to drive transport vehicles and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to the licensed driver. The court held that the mere expiry of the period of licence and omission of the driver to get the licence renewed did not amount to a breach of condition of policy for which the insurance company could be exonerated from the liability. 2. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive. The court held that the Tribunal had erred in applying the multiplier theory by taking 24 years of purchase. The court held that the Tribunal ought to have taken a maximum 18 years of purchase and by applying the same the amount of compensation should have been Rs. 8,50,000.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and award of the Tribunal. The court reduced the compensation to Rs. 10,66,755 and awarded interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation from the date of judgment till the date of payment.
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
1. This appeal, by the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd., is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.5.1991 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, in Misc. Claim Case No. 25 of 1990 by which the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,16,755 by way of compensation on account of death of Major Niraj Sinha, an army officer in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants-respondents, who are widow and children, filed the afore mentioned claim for grant of compensation alleging, inter alia, that the deceased had boarded a mini bus bearing registration No. BRL 2223 at the Koderma Railway Station in the morning of 3.1.1990 for coming to Hazaribagh town. It is said that the vehicle was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed against a roadside tree as a result of which three occupants of the bus including driver and the deceased were killed. A number of other persons sustained injuries and were removed to hospital. The deceased was an army officer aged about 34 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 5,865 per month. The claim was contested by opposite party-appellant by filing written statement and it took the defence that the amount of compensation is excessive and exorbitant, that the liability of the insurance company is limited. The Tribunal after hearing the parties disposed of the claim case by the impugned judgment. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The Tribunal assessed the compensation by taking into consideration various factors and came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 13,16,755.
2. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and award as being illegal and contrary to the evidence and facts on record. Learned counsel, firstly, submitted that the person driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence and, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel, secondly, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. The Tribunal has not correctly adopted the settled principle of law while assessing the quantum of compensation. According to the learned Counsel the grant of compensation for mental shock and agony is erroneous in law. Learned counsel submitted that in no case the amount of compensation should have been more than Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 6,00,000. In this connection, learned Counsel relied upon a decision in Sarla Dixit V/s. Balwant Yadav, 1996 ACJ 581 (SC). Mr. Chatterjee then drew my attention towards petition filed on 31.1.1992 under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code on which this Court after hearing the parties on that application on 22.10.92 ordered that the said petition shall be considered at the time of hearing. In the said petition appellant prayed for acceptance of photocopy of the driving licence and claim form as additional evidence. According to the appellant the vehicle was being driven on the date of the accident by Upendra Kumar Singh who also died in the accident. The said Upendra Kumar Singh was authorised to drive a medium goods vehicle and the licence was valid up to 7.10.1989. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, the driving licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle had already expired and the driver was having no driving licence on the date of accident. In that view of the matter, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability for payment of compensation.
3. On the other hand, Mr. S. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants not only supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal but also pressed the cross-objections filed by the claimants-respondents for enhancement of compensation. According to the learned Counsel the amount of compensation is much low inasmuch as the claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 45,00,000
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
