( 1 ) INSURER is appellant in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

( 2 ) ON 21-11-1989, while deceased aged 42 years who was an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, was driving his Maruti Car, an oil tanker, risk of which was covered by the appellant dashed against the car causing fatal injuries to the deceased. On that account, old parents, widow, two minor daughters and a minor son filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 12 lakhs alleging negligent driving of the oil tanker.

( 3 ) CLAIMANTS examined witnesses and produced documents in support of their claim. Neither appellant nor any other opposite party adduced any evidence. Considering materials on record, Tribunal determined just compensation of Rs. 8,80,000. 00 and directed insurer appellant to pay the same. This is grievance of the appellant.

( 4 ) DRIVER of the oil tanker was the best witness to explain the circumstances under which the truck collided with the car. No explanation has been offered by owner or insurer why he was not examined. Apart from drawing adverse inference that in case driver would have been examined, his negligence in driving the oil tanker would have been proved from the nature of accident, it is clear that driver of the oil tanker was negligent in driving the vehicle resulting in the accident by applying the principle Res ipsa loq uitor. Therefore, owner is vicariously liable for negligent act of the driver and insurer which has covered the risk of the owner in respect of the vehicle has rightly been directed to pay compensation to the claimants who are dependents of the deceased.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the insurer appellant contended that monthly income and contribution of deceased to the family has not been proved in this case. We are not impressed with this submission. Tribunal on account of materials on record has given a finding that deceased was contributing Rs. 4,000. 00 per month to the family. We are satisfied that there is no unreasonableness in this finding. Thus, annual loss of dependency of the claimants is Rs. 48,000. 00.

( 6 ) DECEASED was aged about 42 years. Normally he would have continued in service for another 16 years, In absence of any evidence as regards longevity in family of the deceased, it can be presumed that, as a male Indian, his longevity would have been in the average 70 years. Till that period atleast, he would have maintained the widow which is lost to her.

( 7 ) TRIBUNAL has taken into consideration prospect of increase in salary and mathematically calculated the same up to 65th years of the deceased. When age of superannuation is 58 years, Tribunal was not legally correct in calculation the income the same till 65 years. This method of computation of compensation does not appear to be just. In such circumstances when future is uncertain and claimants get benefit of lump sum payment, an assured annual income from the compensation payable would be the best method of determination of compensation. Parents would not have been dependants for long, widow would have been perpetual dependant, though daughters would not be dependants after their marriage, their marriage expenses are to be incurred, son would have been dependant for a shorter period. Education of children, maintenance of the claimants are other expenses are to be incurred. Taking all these factors into consideration, we are inclined to hold that in case multiple of 12 is adopted, the same would be just. Loss of annual dependency being Rs. 48,000/-, just compensation is determined of Rs. 5,76,000. 00.

( 8 ) INSURER is a public sector undertaking. In case it would have offered compensation to claimants as it would have found to be just leaving the dispute relating to quantum to be adjudicated, we might have given premium to the fairness of the insurer to work payment of interest or payment of interest at lesser rate. In absence of such conduct, we are satisfied that direction to pay interest at 12% per annum from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document