Accident – Income of Housewife – There would be no deduction for personal expenses from income assessed of deceased house wife

Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J. (Oral):- This order will dispose of FAO No.4724 of 2013 and cross objections No.246-CII of 2015 as these have emerged out of award dated 09.05.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa whereby compensation has been assessed on account of death of Pushpa Rani in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 27.03.2010.

2. FAO No.4724 of 2013 has been filed by Rajesh Kumar transferee/owner of offending vehicle i.e motorcycle No.HR-08-E/8299 whereas the cross objections have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. For facility of reference, Rajesh Kumar would be referred to as the appellant, cross objectors as claimants, National Insurance Co. Ltd. as company and Mahavir Bagri as the registered owner.

CM No.23192-CII of 2015 in XOBJC-246-CII of 2015

3. Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 122 days in filing the cross objections.

4. In view of averments made in the application supported by an affidavit of Sh. Sandeep, one of the claimants coupled with that provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing for compensation are benevolent social legislation, application is allowed and delay of 122 days in filing the cross objections is condoned subject to the condition that the claimants shall forgo interest for the period of delay, in case compensation is enhanced.

CM No.19920-CII of 2013 in FAO No.4724 of 2013

Heard.

5. Allowed as prayed for. Delay of 09 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

XOBJC-246-CII of 2015 in/and FAO No.4724 of 2013

6. Counsel for the appellant would argue that as the offending vehicle stood registered in the name of Mahavir Bagri on the day of occurrence i.e. 27.03.2010, respondent No.2-A therein has wrongly been exonerated of liability to pay compensation.

7. Another submission made by counsel is that the Tribunal has wrongly allowed right of recovery in favour of the insurance company for want of driving licence with Sandeep @ Lalia, driver of motorcycle aforesaid. It is further argued that Sandeep was ex parte before the Tribunal and there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that insurance company called upon Sandeep to produce the licence in compliance with the provisions of Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’). In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court Jagmohan Singh Vs. Dev Raj Saini, 2014(12) RCR (Civil) 1880.

8. Counsel representing registered owner of the vehicle, on the contrary, has supported findings of the Tribunal exonerating Mahavir Bagri from liability to pay compensation as the vehicle in question stood sold by Mahavir Bagri in favour of appellant-Rajesh Kumar in the year 2009 long before the occurrence in question and affidavits executed by the registered owner and transferee of the vehicle were produced on record. It is further argued that even during pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, registration was changed in the name of appellant Rajesh Kumar. The application for taking the vehicle on sapurdari was filed by Rajesh Kumar and even revision petition against dismissal of his application was filed by him.

9. Counsel representing the insurance company has supported findings of the Tribunal giving right of recovery by relying upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Pappu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, [2018(2) Law Herald (SC) 412 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 923] : 2018(1) PLR 425, wherein it has been held that the insurance company is entitle to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the Insurance Company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle