IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
United Indian Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ram Piari and others - Respondents
FAO Nos. 90 of 2017 & FAO No. 607 of 2018
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Motor Accident - Rash and negligent driving - Grant of compensation - Appeals arise out of award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Deceased was self employed and his age was 59 year, but yet learned Tribunal below proceeded to order increase of 15% which is not in accordance with law - Para 16.
Finding of the Court :
Deceased was self employed and his age was 59 year, but yet learned Tribunal below proceeded to order increase of 15% which is not in accordance with law and as such, award needs to be modified on that account also - Apportionment of amount shall remain same, as held by learned Tribunal below - Similarly, so far rate of interest is concerned, in view of prevailing market rate of interest at time of accident, same also calls for no interference as such, is upheld - Award passed by learned Tribunal below stands modified.
Result : Appeals disposed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Since, both the appeals arise out of award dated 18.12.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Claim Petition No. 30/2 of 2015, involving same parties, the same were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, parties shall be referred to as mentioned in FAO No. 90 of 2017.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, which are common in both the cases, are that on 1.5.2015, deceased Shri Shree Ram son of Banshi Ram, aged 59, boarded a bus bearing registration No. HP-23B-1723 from Village Kot, District Bilaspur. Though above named person had to get down at Village Bharoli Kalan but when the bus reached at a curve near Village Dholag (Gehrian), Tehsil Jhandutta, Bilaspur, driver of the bus, respondent No.3 Vinod Kumar, lost control over the bus and on account of his rash and negligent driving, bus fell down below the road, as a result of which, deceased named herein above, suffered multiple injuries on his person and died on the spot.
3. Respondent No.1, Smt. Ram Piari widow of Shri Shree Ram (hereinafter, referred to as ‘claimant’), instituted claim petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) for grant of compensation on account of death of Shree Ram, being his legal representative. She claimed that since deceased Shree Ram was the sole bread winner in the family, she has been left with no source of income as such, be granted compensation. Claimant named herein above, claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- being a Government contractor and besides this, was earning additional sum of Rs.5,000/- by doing agricultural pursuits. She alleged that she spent Rs.1.00 Lakh on the last rites of the deceased.
4. Owner and driver of vehicle, respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, by way of reply, though did not dispute the factum of accident and death of Shree Ram but claimed that the amount claimed by the claimant, is highly excessive. Apart from above, both the respondents herein above, claimed that since at the time of accident, offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-insurance company and driver was having valid documents and driving licence, liability, if any, is upon insurance company.
5. Appellant-insurance company, by way of filing separate reply, though admitted the factum of accident and death of deceased named above, but claimed that the bus in question bearing registration No. HP23B-1723 was being driven by the person, who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of vehicle. Apart from above, appellant-insurance company also claimed that there were no valid documents like registration certificate, fitness certificate, route permit and insurance etc.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal below, framed following issues :
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as claimed, if so, its quantum and from whom? OP parties.
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR
4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action? OPR
5. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to sue? OPR
6. Whether the respondent No.2 was no holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-3
7. Whether the bus was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged,. If so, its effect? OPR-3
8. Relief.”
7. Subsequently, vide award dated 17.9.2017, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition and saddled the appellant-insurance company with liability to pay compensation of Rs.8,29,064/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the da
United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur & Ors.
Point of Law : Compensation on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal and parental consortium for children is admissible.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in cases ....
The assessment of compensation must ensure fairness and reasonableness while considering income, future prospects, and applying the appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age.
The court established that the compensation for death in a motor accident must accurately reflect the deceased's potential future income, utilizing the appropriate multiplier based on age rather than....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.