Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 550
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, J.)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Appellant
VERSUS
SMT. SAVITRI AND OTHERS
Respondents
SMT. SAVITRI AND OTHERS
Appellants
VERSUS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS
Respondents
FAO 281 of 2006 with FAO 277 of 2008
Decided on 16-06-2009
For the appellant:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate,
for the appellants.
For the respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3., Mr. Ashwani K.
Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, considering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, loss of dependency, and the application of the multiplier for future prospects.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Section II LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES - [1.7.2006] - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 166, and the Private Car Package Policy in relation to the liability to third parties in case of accidents. The court also highlighted the principles of damages payable to the injured in an accident, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the law in determining the compensation amount and the multiplier to be applied for loss of income on account of dependency.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a government servant, met with a motor vehicle accident and died. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,68,000/- along with interest to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased driver. The court concluded that the liability to pay the compensation was that of the insurer. The court also determined the loss of dependency and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The issues framed by the Tribunal included the cause of the accident, the amount of compensation, possession of a valid driving license, and violation of the insurance policy terms and conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of damages payable to the injured in an accident, interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Private Car Package Policy, and determined the compensation amount and the multiplier for loss of income on account of dependency.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the claimants was allowed, and that of the insurer was dismissed. The insurer was directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation along with up-to-date interest as awarded by the Tribunal within a specified period.
Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral):-The present appeals arise out of common impugned award dated 1.7.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, H.P. Appeal No. 281 of 2006, titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Savitri Devi & others has been filed by the insurer M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Appeal No. 277 of 2008, titled Smt. Savitri & others versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others has been filed by the claimant Smt. Savitri and others. In terms of the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,68,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing of the application i.e. 1.10. 2005 till the date of the deposit of the awarded amount.
2. Shri Raj Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the claimants met with a motor vehicle accident on 28.6.2005 and succumbed to his injuries on 3.7.2005. Claimant Smt. Savitri being wife, Master Naman (minor son) and Smt. Krishna , mother, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lacs. The deceased was travelling in Maruti car No. HP-11-4600 owned and driven by Shri Rattan Singh. Due to the negligence of the driver the accident occurred on 28.6.2005 near village Chandi, H.P. Both the driver and the deceased sustained injuries. Sh. Raj Kumar was given medical treatment, both at the State Hospital, IGMC, Shimla and PGI, Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries on 3.7.2005. At the time of the accident Shri Raj Kumar was a government servant and employed as Pharmacist in the Animal Health/ Breeding Department (Animal Husbandry), State of Himachal Pradesh and drawing a salary of Rs. 9058/- per month. He was 34 years of age and the only bread earner in the family. In addition to the salary he was also having income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from agricultural source.
3. The legal heirs of the driver/owner filed reply admitting the occurrence of the accident. They, however, pleaded that the vehicle being insured with M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the liability was that of the insurer.
4. In separate reply filed by the insurer the claim petition was contested on merits, after taking permission under Section 170 of the Act. Based on the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the death of deceased Raj Kumar was has arisen out of the use of motor vehicle on account of rash/negligent driving of the car No. HP-11-4600 by its deceased driver? OPA
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the deceased driver of the car did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and other documents? OPR-3
4. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy? OPR-1
5. Relief.”
5. Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties. The claimants examined Shri Sita Ram (PW-1), Smt. Savitri (PW-2), Shri Sanjeev Kumar (PW-3), Shri D. N. Garg (PW-4) and Shri Abhishek (PW-5).
6. In rebuttal the respondents examined Smt. Lata (RW-1) and Shri Ramesh Verma (RW-2).
7. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal concluded that Shri Raj Kumar had died in a motor vehicle accident, as car No. HP-11-4600 was being driven by the deceased driver in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal found the driver to have possessed with an effective and valid driving licence. The vehicle was being driven in accordance with the provisions of law and none of the provisions of the law or the terms and conditions of the policy stood violated, hence the liability to pay the compensation was that of the insurer.
8. Taking into account the income of the deceased to be Rs. 12,000/- per month and determining the loss of dependency to be Rs. 8000/- as his contribution to the family, by applying a multiplier of 13, the total loss of income was worked out to be Rs. 12,48,000/-. In the abse
