2020 Supreme(All) 1293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.
Santosh and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
United India Insurance Company and Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 866 of 2003
Decided On : 04-03-2020

Headnote:

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Sections 168, 173, 140, 166, 158 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Compensation – Appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and order passed by Special Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura in M.A.C. – Claimants alleged that due to the said accident the husband of Santosh claimant No. 1 got injured and he had to be admitted to two hospitals first from 25.5.2001 to 26.5.2001 and later from 26.5.2001 till 4.6.2001 where he scummed to the accidental injuries on 4.6.2001. – The deceased left behind him two minor children one of four years and one of 2 years and his young widow of 30 years. – He was also survived by his aged parents. – Bhagwan Singh deceased was 33 years of age and was a teacher in a school earning Rs. 7,000/- per month also had agricultural land. – Deceased had sustained several multiple injuries and the accident occurred on National Highway No. 2 at about 9.30 pm.. – Deceased was traveling on his motor cycle – Deceased was admitted in Swam Jayanti Samuhik Hospital, Mathura and then when the said hospital felt that he was sinking they referred him to Kamayani Hospital, Agra from where he was shifted Mathura. – Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the owners and drivers of the said tractor trolly. – Claimants claim was confronted by the Insurance Company contending that the vehicle was not insured with them. – There was collusion between owner and claimants that the Charge-sheet and F.I.R. was not filed in time. – No effective and valid license was filed. – The owner of the tractor trolly was not cooperating with the Insurance Company. – There was inordinate delay in filing the F.I.R. – The driver of the tractor trolly was not negligent but the deceased was negligent. – Held, Principals for directing the Insurance Company to pay would be on the basis of the fact that it is to be proved that there is no breach of policy condition. – Driving license of the tractor trolly driver shows that the driver he had license to drive light motor vehicle. Tractor is a light motor vehicle even if trolly is insured or not the Insurance Company would be liable as per Santlal (infra). – License produced which is a xerox copy goes to show that the driver of tractor trolly was authorised to drive the tractor. – It is now a settled legal position of law as initiated by the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd:, (2017) 7 Law (SC) 49, retreated in Sant Lal v. Rajesh and others, (2017) 8 SCC 590, that if a person has a driving license of LM V he can drive a tractor trolly. – Hence, it is conclusively proved that the driver had proper driving license there was no breach of policy condition also. – This takes this Court to the last issue of compensation as per the judgment in Vimla Devi (Supra) simple calculation would wipe the tears of a young widow who has waited for 20 years and the children who have lost their only bread winner who was a teacher and was admittedly earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as per the documentary evidence. – He was survived by his widow, two minor children aged one daughter and one son four and two years who by now must have become major, and the aged parents. The deceased was 33 years of age when the accident occurred. – Hence, even by the thumb rule as held in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. Rs. 6,000+Rs. 3,000/- would be Rs. 9,000/- deduction of 1/3rd would be Rs. 3,000/- for personal expenses as there are five survivors but two are minor, hence one portion for them, hence, Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 16 (multiplier) as per judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 12, which would be 11,52,000+ 70,000=12,22,000/-. – The medical expenses of Rs. 50,000/- would also be admissible out of this 50% be deducted towards contributory negligence. – Claimants have proved by the cogent evidence laid before the tribunal that for the treatment of the deceased they have spent not less than Rs. 50,000/-, hence, this Court feels that they would be entitled to get the said amount also – Appeal Partly Allowed