Back
2011 Supreme(J&K) 629
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Hasnain Massodi, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kour & Ors. -Resopndent
CIMA No. 115-2005 & CMP No. 149-2005
Decided On : 30-07-2011
Sunil Sethi, Sumit Singh, K.S. Parihar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Tribunal to assess 'just compensation' irrespective of the claim set up by the petitioner, as emphasized by legal provisions and case law.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Summary: The court addressed the issue of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and emphasized the duty of the Tribunal to assess 'just compensation' irrespective of the claim set up by the petitioner. The court referred to legal provisions and case law to determine the compensation amount, highlighting the principles of 'just compensation' and the factors to be considered in assessing loss of dependency. The court modified the award based on its analysis of the evidence and legal principles.
Fact of the Case:
The claim petition was filed by the dependents of a deceased victim of a vehicular accident, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, an insurance company, contested the claim on the grounds of the driver's lack of a valid driving license and breach of policy by the owner of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized the duty of the Tribunal to assess 'just compensation' irrespective of the claim set up by the petitioner. It noted that the appellant did not refute the factual averments made in the claim petition and highlighted the principles of 'just compensation' as established by legal precedents.
Issues: The issues included the occurrence of the accident, entitlement to compensation, validity of the driver's license, and relief sought by the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal must assess 'just compensation' irrespective of the claim set up by the petitioner, and considered legal principles and evidence to determine the appropriate compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court modified the award, reducing the compensation amount and deleting certain components, based on its analysis of the evidence and legal principles.
2. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh Vaid Nath R/o Delli Channi Himmat, Jammu on 22nd October, 2000 at around 6.45 PM while driving a passenger vehicle (Matador) having registration No. JK02G - 9946 rashly and negligently knocked down Shri Ajit Singh R/o H.No. 79 Lane No. 13 Sector 6, Digiana, Jammu. Shri Ajit Singh, sustained multiple injuries, was shifted to JMC Hospital Jammu, where he succumbed to his injuries. Shri Krishna Kour and her three minor children on 16th August, 2002 filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu. The claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was registered as No. 343/Claims. The claimants - respondents 1 to 4 herein pleading that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- through business and was 35 years of age at the time of accident, claimed compensation of Rs. 6.00 lac on account of death of Shri Ajit Singh in the vehicular accident. The claim petition, was resisted by the appellant - Insurance Company on the grounds that driver of the offending vehicle had not effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident and the appellant - Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation because of breach of policy by owner of the vehicle - respondent no. 5 in the appeal. The appellant did not specifically controvert the case set up by the respondents 1 to 4 before Tribunal that deceased was 35 years of age and had an income of Rs. 10,000/- from his business. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with appellant - Insurance Company. There was a wake exception that the compensation claimed to petitioner was against the "established law". The Tribunal on perusal of the pleadings settled following issues: -
1. Whether an accident took place on 22.10.2000 near Police Lines Gate Jammu due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle NO. JK02G/9946 by its driver/respondent No. 2 in which deceased Ajit Singh has died? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is provided in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether driver of offending vehicle the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence? OPP
4. Relief.
3. The respondents 1 to 4 examined one witness in support of the claim petition. The respondent no.1 also stepped in the witness box. Reliance was also placed on FIR No.528 of 2000 U/s 279/337 RPC Motor Vehicles Act registered at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar regarding the vehicular accident in question and the post-mortem examination report of the deceased. The appellant Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal or to prove the issues onus whereof was placed on the company. The Tribunal on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence brought on the file assessed an amount of Rs. 8,36,000/- on account of loss of dependency, shock and agony, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The compensation assessed was directed to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its final realisation/payment of the award amount.
4. The award dated 27.04.2005 is questioned in the present Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal on the ground that amount awarded is far more than the amount claimed in the petition. It is pointed out that whereas the respondents 1 to 4 claimed an amount of Rs.6.00/- lac as compensation on account of death of their bread earner, the Tribunal erroneously proceeded to award of Rs.8,36,000/- in favour of respondents 1 to 4. The Tribunal is said to have without any evidence on file assessed Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of deceased and after allowing deduction of 1/3rd of inc
