D. Krishnaveni and ors. Vs. Mohd. Sikander and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 2368 of 2007 is filed by the second respondent-new india assurance company limited challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the finding of the tribunal that the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 2368 of 2007 failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, it is liable to pay compensation to the claimants is justified or requires any interference? further, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the insurance company has not only to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle who was driving it at material time had no valid driving licence and it has to further establish that the owner of the vehicle either wilfully allowed the driver who was not duly licenced to drive such vehicle or that he failed to exercise reasonable care, otherwise the insurance company cannot disown it's liability on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the policy. in the absence of any evidence to prove that the owner had not taken any care before the vehicle was given to the driver to drive it and that he was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the liability of the insurance-company to pay the compensation qua the owner of the the vehicle cannot be doubted and the insurance company is not exempted from its liability. whenever it appears for the tribunal that the deceased had earning capacity and was maintaining his family with his earnings, it is well within the competence of the tribunal to arrive at the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation basing on his avocation and other relevant factors.r. kantha rao, j.1. m.a.c.m.a. no. 2489 of 2007 was filed by the claimants challenging the finding of the tribunal that the tribunal having specifically held that the claimants are entitled for an amount of rs. 4,06,000/- as compensation, restricted to the amount of rs. 3,00,000/- which was actually claimed in the claim petition and that the same is not in accordance with law. m.a.c.m.a. no. 2368 of 2007 is filed by the second respondent-new india assurance company limited challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the finding of the tribunal that the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.2. since both the appeals arise out of the award passed by the motor accident claims tribunal-cum-7th additional metropolitan sessions judge, city criminal court, nampally, hyderabad-cum-21st additional chief judge, city civil court, hyderabad in o.p. no. 1242 of 2006 and the common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.3. the contention urged by the appellants (claimants) in m.a.c.m.a. no. 2489 of 2007 involves only questions of law whereas the m.a.c.m.a. no. 2368 of 2007 filed by the insurance company involves both questions of law and fact.4. on the grounds urged by the appellants in both the appeals, the following points would arise for determination by this court:1. whether the finding of the tribunal below that since the appellant/insurance company in m.a.c.m.a. no. 2368 of 2007 failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, it is liable to pay compensation to the claimants is justified or requires any interference?2. whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the tribunal below is just and reasonable or whether it requires any modification?3. whether the tribunal having arrived at the finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation, of rs. 4,06,000/- restricting the same to rs. 3,00,000/- which is actually claimed by the claimants in the claim petition is not in accordance with law?point no. 1:5. the appellant/insurance company in m.a.c.m.a. no. 2368 of 2007 specifically contended in its counter filed before the tribunal that though the offending vehicle was validly insured with it at material time, the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence and, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. however, the burden lies on the insurance company to establish that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence. to discharge the said burden, the insurance company examined its assistant manager as r.w-1 who stated in his evidence that mr. mohammad jahangir driving the offending vehicle at relevant time had no driving licence at all, the first respondent being aware of the said fact appointed him as a driver and permitted him to drive the vehicle which is in violation of stipulations of ex.a-2 insurance policy and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. he also further stated that ex.a-5 certified copy of charge sheet filed by the claimants indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence under section 181 of the motor vehicles act for driving the vehicle without having any valid driving licence.6. in the course of his cross-examination, r.w-1 stated that the investigator of their company informed them that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, but he did not file the report of the investigator and also admitted the said fact. he also further admitted that he did not file any document showing that the driver had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident.7. thus, according to the insurance company, its contention has to be upheld basing on ex.a-5 charge sheet which shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted for the offences under section 304-a of ipc and also under section 181 of the motor vehicles act for causing death by rash and negligent driving and driving the vehicle without possessing any valid driving licence.8. in the first place, it may be noticed that the burden to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, is on the insurance company. except the oral evidence of r.w-1, nothing has been placed on record by the insurance company. it is true that the claimants who filed ex.a-5 cannot contend that they are not placing reliance on the said document to the extent that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. however, the mere fact that the driver was charge-sheeted for the offence under section 181 of motor vehicles act is not conclusive proof of the fact that the driver had no valid driving licence. further, the learned tribunal recorded a positive finding that the magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was filed, took the case on file only under section 304-a of ipc. therefore, it is obvious that even though the driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted for the offence under section 181 of motor vehicles act, no cognizance was taken against him by the learned magistrate for the said offence. under these circumstances, it is incumbent on the part of the insurance company to adduce the required evidence in proof of the fact that the driver had no valid driving licence. the insurance company did not even take steps either to examine the owner of the vehicle or its driver. further, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the insurance company has not only to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle who was driving it at material time had no valid driving licence and it has to further establish that the owner of the vehicle either wilfully allowed the driver who was not duly licenced to drive such vehicle or that he failed to exercise reasonable care, otherwise the insurance company cannot disown it's liability on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the policy.9. in support of his contention, reliance is placed by the insurance company on national insurance co. ltd. v. tulna devi 2009 acj 581 (sc). in the said case, the supreme court held as follows:in the absence of any evidence to prove that the owner had not taken any care before the vehicle was given to the driver to drive it and that he was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the liability of the insurance-company to pay the compensation qua the owner of the the vehicle cannot be doubted and the insurance company is not exempted from its liability.10. in the instant case, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the insurance company did not lead the evidence which is necessary to exonerate it from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and it is not possible for the insurance company to take shelter, under ex.a-5 certified copy of charge sheet filed by the claimants which merely indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted for the offence under section 181 of the motor vehicles act for driving the vehicle, without possessing any valid driving licence. thus, this point is answered against the appellant/insurance company in m.a.c.m.a. no. 2368 of 2007.point no. 2:11. according to the claimants, the deceased was a plumber, earning rs. 4,500/- per month. he was said to be aged 39 years on the date of his death. the tribunal accepted the age of the deceased mentioned in the claim petition in view of the fact that ex.a-2 certified copy of inquest report and ex.a-3 certified copy of postmortem report also, his age was mentioned as 39 years. however, the main contention urged on behalf of the insurance company is that the tribunal having held that no proof is placed by the claimants in support of the earnings of the deceased, considered his income at rs. 3,000/- per month for the purpose of computing compensation which is erroneous. according to the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, the tribunal ought not to have taken any amount in excess of rs. 15,000/- per annum which is mentioned in the second schedule to section 163-a of motor vehicles act relating to non-earning persons. i absolutely see no force in the contention urged by the learned counsel. the said amount of rs. 15,000/- mentioned in the second schedule is only relevant for the persons who cannot make any earnings. whenever it appears for the tribunal that the deceased had earning capacity and was maintaining his family with his earnings, it is well within the competence of the tribunal to arrive at the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation basing on his avocation and other relevant factors.12. in p. yeshodamma v. t. buchi reddy : 2006 acj 414 (a.p.), the learned single judge of this court dealing with the case of the deceased aged 45 years and a labourer upheld the finding of the tribunal in fixing the income of the deceased at rs. 100/- per day. therefore, in the instant case, even if the deceased is not considered to be a skilled worker, the tribunal, in my view did not commit any error in fixing the income of the deceased at rs. 3,000/- per month since it is not unreasonable even if he was only a labourer.13. since the crux of the dispute relates to the quantum of compensation, this court while dealing with both the appeals as to arrive at just and reasonable compensation for which the claimants are entitled. recently in sarla verma v. delhi transport corporation 2009 (4) scj 91 (s.c.) : 2009 (2) l.s. 29 (s.c.), the supreme court in order to set at rest the conflicting judgments relating to the appropriate multiplier, the deductions to be made towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased and other relevant factors in the matter of deciding the just and reasonable compensation issued certain guidelines by referring to some of its earlier land mark judgments on the subject, it would be appropriate to arrive at just and reasonable compensation basing on the above referred decision.14. the monthly income of the deceased is rs. 3,000/-. his annual income is rs. 36,000/-. the dependent family members (the claimants) are four in number. as per the above decision, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased instead of 1/3rd as was done by the learned tribunal. if so deducted, the amount comes to rs. 27,000/-. the multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased as per the decision is 15. to arrive at the loss of dependency, the above mentioned amount has to be capitalized with 15 which comes to rs. 4,05,000/-. in addition, as per the judgment, the claimants are entitled for an amount of rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. this apart, the first claimant who is the widow is entitled for an amount of rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. the total compensation, therefore, would be rs. 4,25,0o0/-.15. the learned tribunal gave a finding that the claimants are entitled for an amount of rs. 4,06,000/-, but restricted the amount to rs. 3,00,000/- which was actually claimed in the claim petition. this court arrived at the decision that the reasonable compensation for which the claimants are entitled is rs. 4,25,000/-. the enhanced compensation, therefore, would be rs. 1,25,000/-.point no. 3:16. the question now remains to be considered is whether the decision of the tribunal though reached a finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of rs. 4,06,000/- restricting the same to the claim of rs. 3,00,000/-made by them in the claim petition is not in accordance with law. in support of their contention that despite the fact they claimed compensation of rs. 3,00,000/- if it is just and reasonable compensation arrived at by the tribunal is higher than that of the amount actually claimed in the claim petition, it shall not be restricted to the amount actually claimed, the claimants relied upon a decision in nagappa v. gurudayal singh 2003 (1) an.w.r. 135 (sc) : 2002 (8) supreme 497. in the said case, the supreme court laid down that it is for the tribunal to determine just compensation from the evidence which is brought on record. if evidence on record justifies passing of award for more than the amount actually claimed, the claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the claimant has restricted his claim and it can be permitted at the appellate stage also. in view of the above decision, the claimants are entitled for compensation of rs. 4,25,000/- which according to this court is just and reasonable. the learned tribunal ought not to have restricted the compensation to the actual claim made by the claimants in the claim petition.17. therefore, the claimants (the appellants) in m.a.c.m.a. no. 2489 of 2007 are entitled for total compensation of rs. 4,25,000/-. the enhancement would be rs. 1,25,000/-. the claimants will be entitled to the said amount of rs. 1,25,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the tribunal. the first claimant, the widow of the deceased shall be exclusively entitled for the enhanced compensation. the enhanced compensation of rs. 1,25,000/-shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.18. in the result, the m.a.c.m.a. no. 2489 of 2007 filed by the claimants is allowed. m.a.c.m.a. no. 2368 of 2007 filed by the insurance company is dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.