Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Anjuli Palo, J.
IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Imarti Bai & Ors. - Respondents
MA No. 2850 of 2013
Decided On : 03-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Smt. Devika Singh, learned counsel, Shri Ram Manohar Patel, learned counsel
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the negligence of the driver and the deceased's monthly income and future prospects.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - [166] - The court awarded compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after finding the driver negligent and the deceased entitled to compensation as per his monthly income and future prospects. The court also discussed the application of multipliers and deductions for living expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motor vehicle accident and the claimants filed a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant denied liability, citing the deceased's negligence and lack of a valid license. The tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the driver negligent and the deceased entitled to compensation based on his monthly income and future prospects. The court also discussed the application of multipliers and deductions for living expenses.
Issues: Negligence of the driver, validity of the deceased's license, assessment of future income, application of multipliers, and deductions for living expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver was negligent, and the deceased's dependents were entitled to compensation based on his monthly income and future prospects. The court also discussed the application of multipliers and deductions for living expenses.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and awarded Rs. 33,67,155 with interest as compensation to the claimants, instead of the original amount of Rs. 37,66,372.
Smt. Anjuli Palo, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging award dated 10.07.2013, passed by VIII AMACT, Jabalpur in claim case No. 45/2012 whereby Rs. 37,66,372/- has been awarded as compensation jointly and severally under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that, claimants/respondent no. 1 to 6 are the dependents of deceased Bakil Singh. On 07.11.2011 deceased Bakil Singh, husband of respondent no. 1 (Smt. Imarti Bai) was going to Shahpura from Belkheda by his motor cycle on the National Highway No. 12. Near Lamheta Tiraha, motor-cycle bearing registration no. MP 49/MD/2715 driven by respondent no. 7 (Vinod Agrawal) rashly and negligently dashed Bakil Singh because of which he fell down and received injuries. Some people brought him to Bhandari Hospital. During the treatment where he died on 18.11.2011. Therefore, the respondents no. 1 to 6 filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellant/Insurance Company along with respondent no. 7 who was driving the pillion and respondent no. 8 (owner) claiming for compensation to the tune of Rs.71,50,000/-.
3. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 7 is the driver and respondent no. 8 is the owner of offending vehicle (motor-cycle) bearing Registration No. MP 49/MD/2715. The learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 8/owner.
4. The appellant/Insurance Company denied the averments made in the claim petition and its liability on the ground that the deceased himself was negligently driving his motor cycle without holding any effective and valid licence. The owner and the insurance company of the motor-cycle which was being driven by the deceased are also necessary parties. Further, respondent no.7 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. Hence, for breach of the insurance policy, the insurance company/appellant denied its liability to pay compensation.
5. Learned Tribunal drawing adverse inference against respondent no. 7 found that at the time of accident, respondent no. 7 (Vinod) was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which the accident occurred and Bakil Singh sustained fatal injuries which caused his death.
6. Learned Tribunal further found that at the time of accident, Bakil Singh was working as Head Constable in Police Department. As per the statement of Smt. Sushila Devi, ASI and office record (Ex. P/145 and P/147), Bakil Singh was earning Rs. 17,987/- per month. Respondents/claimants no. 1 is the widow of deceased Bakil Singh. Respondents/claimants no. 2 to 5 are their children and respondent/claimant no. 6 is the aged mother of the deceased. Hence, they are the legal representatives and are entitled to receive compensation. The learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,66,372/- from respondent no. 7/driver, respondent no. 8/owner and the appellant/Insurance Company jointly and severally.
7. The impugned award has been challenged by non-applicant no. 3/insurance company on the grounds that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record. Learned Tribunal holding that the respondents no. 7 & 8/driver and owner and the appellant insurance company are liable to pay compensation, even then the identification and involvement of the motor-cycle of respondent no. 8 was disputed. In the FIR, the number of the offending motor-cycle is not narrated by the claimants. The deceased was himself negligent hence, for the contributory negligence of the deceased the quantum of compensation deserves to be half and award against the insurance company is liable to be set aside.
8. Perused the record. Heard the counsel for the parties.
9. FIR (Ex. P/2) was lodged against unknown TVS Star City motor-cycle. On the date of accident, the aforesaid motor-cycle was seized from the spot by
