Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 683
2007 UAD 265
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Rajeev Gupta and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C.S. Rawat
Appeal From Order No. 16A of 2001
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MRS. MANJINDER KAUR & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 01.12.2006
For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Pandey, Learned Counsel
For the Respdts 1 to 4 : Mr. Zafar Ullah Siddiquie, Learned Counsel
Headnote:(A) Police Report — Non proving of — Effect of — Report of Police not proved in accordance with provisions of law — Such report been result of inquiry of police Sub-Inspector — Such report is worst piece of hearsay evidence which is not admissible in evidence — Even if it is admitted in evidence it cannot be held to be direct evidence of fact. (Para 13)
(B) Compensation — Just and proper compensation — Assessment of — Question of — Just and proper compensation depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. (Paras 16, 17)
¼v½ iqfyl fjiksVZ & fl) u fd;k tkuk & izHkko & iqfyl dh fjiksVZ fof/k ds izkoèkkuksa ds vuqlkj fl) ugha dh x;h & ,slh fjiksVZ mi&fujh{kd dh tk¡p dk ifj.kkeLo:i Fkh & ,slh fjiksVZ lqus lquk;s lk{; dk lcls [kjkc Hkkx gS tks fd lk{; esa xzká ugha gS & ;|fi bldks lk{; esa xzfgr dj Hkh fy;k tkrk gS rks Hkh bldks rF;ksa dk izR;{k lk{; /kkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼izLrj 13½
¼c½ izfrdj & U;k;iw.kZ ,oa mfpr izfrdj & fu/kkZj.k dk iz'u & U;k;iw.kZ ,oa mfpr izfrdj izR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djrk gSA
¼izLrj 16] 17½
Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.
1. This appeal, preferred u/s 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/IIIrd Additional District Judge, Nainital, in M.A.C Case No. 13 of 1999 whereby the claim of the claimants was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,95,136/- and the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay the same.
2. The claimants, Smt. Manjinder Kaur widow of the deceased, Rajendra Singh and her three minor children, namely Paramjeet Singh, Harpreet Kaur and Gurpreet Singh had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 18.06.1998 at about 4:30 p.m., while the deceased-Rajendra Singh was going on scooter bearing No. U.P.02B/9357 with Harvinder Singh, an offending truck bearing No. UAB-4018 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed from the back side of the scooter near Rusi Gaon, 4 kms from Nainital, due to which the deceased and the driver of the scooter and the truck fell into the gorge resulting the death of Rajendra Singh and other persons at the spot. It was further alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident and his monthly income was Rs. 10,000/- p.m..
3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed their separate written statement. The insurance Company - opposite party No. 1 admitted the accident and pleaded that the truck was being plied in breach of the policy condition and the insurer has not been informed about the alleged accident, as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The opposite party No. 2 (respondent No. 5) had admitted the date, place and time of the accident. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to failure of the brake. It was pleaded that the truck was insured with the National Insurance Company via cover Note No. 69309 which was valid from 19.04.98 to 18.04.1999 and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the claimants.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following three necessary issues.
i. Whether on 18.06.1988 at about 4:30 p.m, the truck No. UAB-4018 hit the scooter near Rusi Gaon, Haldwani Nainital Road, Police Station Tallital, Distt. Nainital and both the vehicles fell in the gorge due to which Rajinder Singh, sitting in the scooter sustained the injuries and died at the spot?
ii. Whether the deceased Sardar Rajender Singh was gratuitous passenger in Truck No. UAB-4018 alongwith 43 pilgrims?
iii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, if yes, from whom and how?
5. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the issue No. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and held that the accident occurred due to dashing of the truck from the back side of the scooter. On issue No. 3 the Tribunal held as the offending truck was insured with the Insurance Company, so the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,95,136/- as compensation against the appellant – Insurance Company.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance Company/appellant has filed this appeal.
7. Heard Shri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Zafar Ullah Siddiquie, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.
8. The respondent/claimants had filed Cross Objection No. 1913 of 2001 in the appeal in question and prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced from Rs. 4,95,136/- to Rs. 15,00,000/-.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 63,278 per annum; in selecting the higher multiplier of 12; and in awarding the excessive compensation of Rs. 4,95,136/-.
10. The learned counsel for the claimant
