Skip to content


Latabai and anr. Vs. Vedparkash and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Judge

Reported in

I(1991)ACC166; (1991)L.R.1I.A.166

Appellant

Latabai and anr.

Respondent

Vedparkash and ors.

Excerpt:


.....fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in..........and driven by the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 3, insurance company, being the insurer in respect of the vehicle at the material lime.2. the facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly staled, are as follows:during the night intervening between 29.4.1983 and 30.4.1983 while the deceased amritlal was driving the tanker bearing registration no. mbf 914 on indore-baroda road, the offending truck bearing registration no. utg 6209, being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no. 2, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the tanker causing serious injuries to its driver, the deceased amritlal, who succumbed to those injuries. on a claim petition having been filed by the appellants as surviving dependants of the deceased amritlal, the learned tribunal, on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, found that the deceased amritlal died as a result of the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2. on the question of compensation awardable to the claimants, the learned tribunal found that the deceased was 30 years of age and was getting a salary of rs. 500/- per month as a driver at the lime of his death by accident. the learned.....

Judgment:


R.K. Varma, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants, namely, surviving widow and minor daughter of the deceased Amritlal, against the award dated 1.5.1984 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 35 of 1983 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30, 000/- as compensation in respect of the death of the deceased as a result of a motor accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. UTG 6209 owned by the respondent No. 1 and driven by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3, insurance company, being the insurer in respect of the vehicle at the material lime.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly staled, are as follows:

During the night intervening between 29.4.1983 and 30.4.1983 while the deceased Amritlal was driving the tanker bearing registration No. MBF 914 on Indore-Baroda Road, the offending truck bearing registration No. UTG 6209, being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No. 2, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the tanker causing serious injuries to its driver, the deceased Amritlal, who succumbed to those injuries. On a claim petition having been filed by the appellants as surviving dependants of the deceased Amritlal, the learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, found that the deceased Amritlal died as a result of the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. On the question of compensation awardable to the claimants, the learned Tribunal found that the deceased was 30 years of age and was getting a salary of Rs. 500/- per month as a driver at the lime of his death by accident. The learned Tribunal estimated that out of the salary of Rs. 500/-, the deceased required an expenditure of Rs. 250/- on himself and spared the balance of Rs. 250/- for the maintenance of the dependants. On such estimates, the amount of annual dependency has been assessed as Rs. 3, 000/- and applying a multiplier of ten, the learned Tribunal has computed the amount of compensation as Rs. 30, 000/-. Interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation payable from the date of the claim petition till realisation has also been awarded.

3. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the amount of dependency which should have been atleast Rs. 300/- per month out of the salary of Rs. 500/- that the deceased was gelling, there being two dependants of the deceased, namely, the widow and the daughter. It has also been submitted that the deceased being only 30 years of age at the lime of his death by accident, would have survived for long years and as such, the multiplier of ten adopted by the learned Tribunal was too low having regard to the young age of the deceased.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel, we arc of the opinion that the learned Tribunal should have estimated Rs. 300/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3, 600/- per annum as the annual dependency and should have adopted a multiplier of 15, having regard to the age of the deceased, for assesing a just and fair compensation awardable to the appellant-claimants. Computing the compensation by applying a multiplier of 15 to the annual dependency of Rs. 3, 600/- the amount of compensation which can appropriately be awarded works out to be Rs. 54, 000/-. The rate of interest of 9 per cent per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal also deserves to be raised to 12 per cent per annum.

6. Accordingly, the award of the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified inasmuch as instead of Rs. 30, 000/- awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, the appellants are held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 54, 000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

7. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed with costs and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified such that the amount of compensation payable to the appellant-claimants shall be Rs. 54, 000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation instead of a compensation of Rs. 30, 000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-, if certified.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //