Judgment:
FAOs No.6772,6773,6774 and 6775 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 FAO No.6772 of 2011(O&M) Date of order:
30. 07.2013 The New India Assurance Company Ltd....Appellant Versus Khuma Kumari and others ...Respondents 2- FAO No.6773 of 2011(O&M) Date of order:
30. 07.2013 The New India Assurance Company Ltd....Appellant Versus Suraj and others ...Respondents 3- FAO No.6774 of 2011(O&M) Date of order:
30. 07.2013 The New India Assurance Company Ltd....Appellant Versus Arjun Keshi and others ...Respondents 4- FAO No.6775 of 2011(O&M) Date of order:
30. 07.2013 Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAOs No.6772,6773,6774 and 6775 o”
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd....Appellant Versus Mahesh and others ...Respondents -- CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for respondents Khuma Kumari, Mumishwar, Laxmi, Arjun Keshi and Mahesh.
Service qua Nirmal Singh dispensed with.
Mr.Harpinder Singh, Advocate for Mr.Sandeep punchhi, Advocate for Sardar Khan, owner of truck in question.
**** Vijender Singh Malik, J.
The above mentioned four appeals have been brought by New India Assurance Company LTD.Sirsa, the insurer against the common award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Fast Track Court).SiRs.(for short 'the Tribunal') on 28.07.2011.
Khuma Kumari and others in claim petition No.42 of 2010 brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAOs No.6772,6773,6774 and 6775 o”
3. Act') sought compensation in a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- on the death of Madhav in a road side accident that took place on 16.01.2010.
The appeal filed in this case bears No.6772 of 2011.
Suraj filed claim petition No.43 of 2010 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries he sustained in the accident.
The appeal filed in the said case bears No.6773 of 2011.
Arjun Keshi filed claim petition No.44 of 2010 seeking compensation 10,00,000/- for the injuries he sustained in the aforesaid accident.
The appeal filed in this case is 6774 of 2011 and the last appeal No.6775 of 2011 is in claim case No.45 of 2010, in which Mahesh sought compensation in a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident.
Learned Tribunal vide the impugned award has allowed the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs.4,37,000/- as compensation in claim petition No.42 of 2010 in favour of Khuma Kumari and otheRs.He has also allowed a sum of Rs.35,750/- as compensation in favour of Suraj in claim petition no.43 of 2010, a sum of Rs.89,000/- as compensation in case of Arjun Keshi in claim petition no.44 of 2010 and Rs.1,26,549/- as compensation in favour of Mahesh in claim petition no.45 of 2010.
The challenge by the insurance company in the aforesaid appeals is to a finding of learned Tribunal to the effect that there was permit in favour of the offending vehicle to go through the Haryana Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAOs No.6772,6773,6774 and 6775 o”
4. State.
Learned Tribunal has taken the document Ex.R-2, which is payment of passengers and goods tax to be a permit and did not hold that the vehicle was being plied in Haryana without valid route permit.
The challenge is also to the amount of compensation assessed in favour of Khuma Kumari and others in claim petition no.42 of 2010 only.
On 16.01.2010 at about 7.00 AM Madhav, since deceased alongwith Bhim Singh, Mahesh, Suraj, Naveen and Arjun was going to SiRs.from Fatehabad in a car bearing registration not HR-25F-0036 driven by Bhim Singh.
When they were near Ramdev Petrol Pump of village Moriwala, a truck bearing registration not RJ-31G-1543 driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came and hit their car, as a result of which all the occupants of the car suffered injuries, which proved fatal in case of Madhav and Bhim Singh.
Madhav is claimed to be a cook by profession and had been engaged for preparing food in marriage parties and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
A sum of Rs.20,000/- is claimed to have been spent on transportation of the dead body and last rites.
The aforesaid averments of the claimants were denied by the respondents.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAOs No.6772,6773,6774 and 6775 o”
5. Framing issues and taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal decided the claim petitions in the aforesaid manner.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the permit with truck not RJ-31G-1543 was for plying the same in the area of Rajasthan State.
According to her, the owner of the truck did not possess a valid route permit for Haryana area and as the vehicle was used in the area of Haryana State without a valid route permit, the insurance company was not liable to satisfy the award.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Ex.R-2 was produced by respondent no.2 and the same has been taken as a valid permission.
According to her, this was not a valid route permit but a passengers and goods tax receipt, which could not authorize the truck to be plied in the area of Haryana State.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the deceased had been found to have a monthly income of Rs.3000/-, out of which 2/3rd is taken as dependency of the claimants and as Rs.24,000/- was found as annual dependency of the claimants, the multiplier of 18 is applied, which is not admissible.
According to her, the deceased has been a bachelor and in case of a bachelor, the multiplier has to be governed by the age of the claimants.
In this regard, she has cited a decision of Hon'ble Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAOs No.6772,6773,6774 and 6775 o”
6. Supreme Court of India in Shakti Devi v.
New India Insurance Co.LTD.and another 2010(4) RCR (Civil ) 950.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that permission had been granted to the truck to move through Haryana State on payment of passengers and goods tax receipt.
According to them, it was a permission for a specific period and it amounts to issuance of route permit to the said truck for plying in the area of Haryana State.
It is also argued that the compensation assessed in favour of Khuma Kumari and others on the death of Madhav is also just and proper and it does not admit of any liability to be reduced.
The route permit is permission by a particular State to a vehicle to be plied in the area of that State.
A vehicle being plied in a particular area has the fiscal liability towards the authorities of that State.
On payment of requisite fee, route permit is given by a State.
Route permit is given for a particular period.
If a vehicle is not to be usually plied in a particular area and casually passes through that area, the tax can be paid for that particular period.
It seems to have been so done in this case by way of Ex.R-2.
In this case, Kanwar Singh, Taxation Officer appeared as RW-1 and he has stated specifically that since the owner had deposited the tax on the date of accident, his vehicle was permitted Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAOs No.6772,6773,6774 and 6775 o”
7. to go through the Haryana State.
So temporary permission had been granted to the vehicle for being taken through the area of Haryana State and, thus, there was no violation on the part of the insured in bringing the vehicle to Haryana State.
He had brought the vehicle to Haryana State only after paying the dues of the Haryana State for that trip.
In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has been justified in holding that the insurance company cannot escape from its liability on this ground.
Learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Madhav at Rs.3000/- per month.
1/3rd is the deduction made thereto in the name of expenses of the deceased on himself.
The deceased is claimed to be a cook working on occasions of marriage etc.Rs.3000/- is even less than the income of an unskilled labourer.
The deceased was travelling in a car and as he had the capacity to move in a car, his income cannot be taken below Rs.5000/- per month.
Learned Tribunal has, thus , assessed the income at a very lower side.
However, the deduction has not been proper.
The deduction in this case should have been 50%.
Applying this deduction, the monthly dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2500/-, which multiplied with 12 brings the annual dependency at Rs.30,000/-.
In this case the multiplier of 18 is also not proper.
It should have been 14 as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAOs No.6772,6773,6774 and 6775 o”
8. Sarla Verma and others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 because the multiplier is governed by the age of the claimants.
So multiplying Rs.30,000/- with 14, I find a sum of Rs.4,20,000 as lost by the claimants.
Adding to it, a sum of Rs.17,000/- as allowed by the Tribunal under the conventional heads, I find that a sum of Rs.4,37,000/- is the compensation admissible to the claimants which has been awarded by learned Tribunal.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 30 07.2013 dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh