NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the insurer of the offending jeep vehicle bearing No. CTA 5241 of respondent No. 4 (R-4). The judgment and award dated 17-10-1996 of the M.A.C.T., Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, holding the appellant also liable to pay 50% of the compensation to the claimants has been challenged by it on the ground that it is not liable in law to pay the same since the 'Act only policy of insurance' issued by it in respect of the said private jeep vehicle did not cover the risk to the passengers travelling therein, as the deceased victim Ganapathi Adiga was an occupant thereof when it met with an accident.

(2.) A few relevant facts, as justifiably found proved by the Tribunal, are as stated under :On 7-10-1992, the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the said jeep vehicle from Udupi to Kundapura in the District of Dakshina Kannada. It was being driven in high speed by its owner R-4. It was racing behind the goods truck bearing Registration No. MIR 9247 which was transporting the load of wooden logs which were protruding beyond its body. When both these vehicles reached near a place called Brahmavara, the truck was suddenly stopped without giving any signal. As a result, the jeep which was coming from behind, dashed against the hind portion of the truck so stopped, which resulted in fatal wounds to the deceased who succumbed to his injuries on the following day while under treatment in the K. M. C. Hospital at Manipal. Since the truck driver failed to give the signal of the stoppage of the truck, which he was duty bound to give; and the jeep driver was careless in driving the vehicle in a high speed behind the said truck without keeping a reasonable distance from it so as to avoid meeting with an accident in the event of the truck coming to an abrupt halt on a public road, both drivers are rightly held by the Tribunal guilty of contributory negligence in causing the accident. Therefore, the opportionment of their liability equally by the Tribunal, in the ratio of 50:50, is not in dispute.

(3.) The deceased was aged 48 years and was running a grocery shop at his place. He was maintaining the family consisting of his widow aged 42 years and 5 minor children, who are the claimants-respondents. Keeping in view the evidence on record, his monthly income was determined at Rs. 3,600/-. Deducting 1/3rd thereof on his personal expenses, the total dependency loss suffered by the claimants is determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,74,400/- by quantifying the annual loss of Rs. 28,800/- with appropriate multiplier of 13. Besides, a total sum of Rs. 17,464.35 has been added as the special damages payable under the heads of medical expenses, funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss to the estate. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 3,91,864.35 has been awarded to the claimants as against their petition claim of Rs. 2,50,000/-, following the rulings of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the cases of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mast Ram, 1989 Acc CJ 1120 and Surjit Singh v. Waryam Singh, 1994 Acc CJ 505, where it is held that as it is not the requirement of law under the M. V. Act for the claimants to specify the amount of compensation in their claim petition, the duty enjoined on the Tribunal by the relevant provisions thereof is to assess the just amount of compensation payable to the claimants; and it, therefore, follows that the Tribunal is not powerless in making an award even in excess of the amount of compensation claimed. Therefore, the adequacy of compensation so determined and awarded by the Tribunal is also not and cannot be disputed by the appellant-insurer.