USHA SEHGAL Vs. CHHOTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dt. 5-9-1979 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,09,718.00 with costs of the proceedings. The Tribunal also directed that in terms of the Insurance Policy Ex, R. W. 1/1, the liability of the New India Assurance Company, Respondent No. 5 was limited to Rs. 50,000.00. A decree for the, balance amount has been passed against Respondents 1 and 2 joint and several. The court, had recorded that an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 has already been paid by the Insurance Company. On Aug. 3, 1984, Goswamy, J. expedited the hearing of this appeal on the application of the counsel for the appellants. The matter was directed to be listed on 10th Sept. 1984 for the final hearing. It is shocking that in spite of the fact that at the behest of the Advocates themselves the matters are expedited for hearing but they remain absent. Absenting without mentioning the matter to the court is becoming quite common in this court now. If the Advocates and the Bar does not realise its responsibility towards the litigants, the Court would be required to take a serious view of the matter. Earlier Mr. Suri Advocate had appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company but today he was also not present. In these circumstances there is no alternative but to dispose of the petition in the absence of the Advocates. The respondents were served by substituted service and nobody is present today on their behalf.

(2.) On 25-9-1974 at about 8.30 A.M. Narender Prakash Sehgal, the deceased was going on his cycle and on the crossing of the Parliament Street and Ashoka Road near the Patel Chowk he was hit by the Bus No. DLP. 5682 under the service of Delhi Transport Corporation. Narinder Prakash Sehgal died on the spot. These facts are duly proved by the evidence before the Tribunal and need not be repeated here. At the time of the death Narinder Prakash Sehgal was about thirty years old. He was survived by his widow, two minor sons and one daughter. He had also an old father to be supported. At the time of his death he was serving with M/s. Engineers (India) Ltd., Parliament Street, New Delhi. His salary was Rs. 826.00 per month. After deducting one-third amount for his personal expenses the Tribunal came to the conclusion that his annual contribution to the family would have been Rs. 6612.00. Considering his age as thirty years a multiplier of twenty years has been applied by the Tribunal and on that basis the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rs. 1,32,240.00 would be the appropriate amount of compensation. The Tribunal also considered that he was supporting his wife, three minor children and the old father. The Tribunal has, however, deducted a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 received by the widow from the Life Insurance Corporation and the amount of Rs. 1600.00 received by way of gratuity and has further deducted a sum of Rs. 19,362.00 for the lump sum payment.

(3.) Considering the recent decisions of this Court and the decisions of the Supreme Court none of these amounts should have been deducted. The amount of compensation is an attempt at reinstatement in terms of money to the loss suffered by the family. This includes the personal loss and also the material well being to which the family is deprived. 1 do not think that the deductions, as made by the Tribunal, were proper and set aside that part of the order of the Tribunal. I, therefore, direct that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,32,240.00 as a compensation, to the appellants. This means that all the respondents, namely, Chhote Ram, Respondent No. I, Man Mohan, Respondent 2, the Delhi Transport Corporation, Respondent No. 4 and New India Assurance Company, Respondent 5 are liable. It may be noted that Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., which was originally Respondent 3 was deleted from the array of respondents. It has not been proved that the liability of the Assurance Company, Respondent 5 was limited to Rs. 50,000.00 by a contract. In spite of that the Tribunal has held that the liability of Assurance Company was only Rs. 50,000.00. The law on the point is quite clear. Where there is a comprehensive insurance the Insurance Company is primarily liable for the payment of the entire amount but had a right to contribution under S. 96 of the Act from the other respondents. The appellants are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,32,240.00'' minus a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 which is already received by them. They are entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the application till the date of the payment. Of course, on the amount of Rs. 50,000.00 the interest would be payable from the date of the application to the date of the deposit of the said amount.