The court emphasized the principle of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, mandating that insurance companies remain liable even if the policy is in the name of a deceased owner, provided premiums were paid.

ORDER :

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 25.4.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhotaudepur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.383 of 2017 (Old No.1875 of 2003).

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The brief fact of present case is that while on 20.6.2003 at about 04.30 a.m. deceased was labour and was travelling on Tractor No. GJ-6-A-9302 & Trolley No. GJ-X-2894 as labourer for loading-unloading of soil at that time while tractor was climbing on ascent road at that time due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, he lost control over vehicle and front wheels of tractor got hung up, in result deceased fell down on the road and wheels of trolley rolled over his body and accident occurred. In same accident grievous injuries were sustained by the deceased and he succumbed to same injuries.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants - claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that amount of award is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like prospective income of the deceased, negligence, liability and family circumstances, etc. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating respondent No.3 Insurance Company from paying compensation and holding that only respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd of the considered income towards personal expenses of the deceased. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has assumed the income of Rs.2,200/- per month. The income of the deceased ought to have considered at Rs.3000/- per month.

3.1 He has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly and this appeal may be allowed.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants has also submitted that the learned Tribunal erroneously exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the deceased was sitting on mudguard of the tractor as passenger. He would further submit that the dc was admittedly engaged on the tractor to off-load the soil filled in the trailer part of the tractor. He would further submit that insurance policy of the tractor shows sitting capacity of the tractor was 1 + 1 and premium for legal liability of employee/labourer has been taken and in that circumstances, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation indemnifying risk of the owner of the vehicle. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the insurance policy issued in name of dead person and therefore, the contract of the policy stood void. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal while writing such finding, failed to notice the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of United Insurance Company Limited Vs. Santro Devi and others, (2009) 1 SCC 558. He would further submit that the insurance company did not raise contention that the contract was obtained by fraud and was not validly executed. He would further submit that in view of such position of law, the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from liability to pay the compensation.

5. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent – Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased, the age of the deceased, the