ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NAFIS AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') against the judgment and award dated 28.10.2003, passed in M.A.C. Petition No. 121 of 2001, Nafis Ahmad v. Quamar Jahan Hashami, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, I F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,46,000 along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum in favour of claimant-respondent No. 1 as against the opposite party No. 2-appellant. Aggrieved, insurance company has come up in appeal with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of holding of valid driving licence by the driver of offending bus No. URM 8505 and breach of policy conditions as well as quantum of compensation and it has been contended that the findings of the learned Tribunal are not based on the evidence on record.

(2.) Brief facts are that claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal for the death of Salama (the deceased) on account of injuries sustained by her in a motor accident oh, 1.3.2001 at 4 p.m., with the allegations that on the fateful day, the deceased was standing at the door of the house along with her children. In the meantime, bus No. URM 8505 driven rashly and negligently came from the side of Jaspur and entered the house of the claimants by breaking the door and wall, with the result deceased sustained grievous injuries. She was rushed to Combined Hospital, Jaspur and then referred to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi on 6.3.2001, where during her treatment, she succumbed to her injuries. The opposite party No. 1, the owner of the bus, contested the petition refuting the negligence of the bus driver, rather the deceased died due to illness. It has been pleaded that the bus being duly insured, the liability rests on the insurance company appellant. Opposite party No. 2, appellant, has also contested the claim petition and denied the allegation made in the petition challenging the quantum of compensation claimed and rash and negligence on the part of bus driver.

(3.) The learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case. On issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the motor accident in question was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus involved in the accident. The Tribunal found that paper No. 39-Ka/ 16 in Form No. 54, the driving licence was available on record, which was valid up to 27.1.2001 and it has been held that only because the driving licence has not been renewed, therefore, it has been held that since the driving licence has been effective from 28.1.1990, the driver was skilled driver and relief cannot be refused only on this ground. On issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal after considering the entire evidence has found that the bus in question was duly insured, therefore, the insurance company appellant is liable to pay compensation. On the basis of evidence on record, the monthly income of the deceased was proved to be Rs. 3,000 and the learned Tribunal found that annual loss of dependency can be safely determined at Rs. 18,000. Deceased was aged 28 years at the time of her death, therefore, multiplier of 18 was applied and the Tribunal has ultimately awarded a sum of Rs. 3,46,000 as total compensation in favour of the claimant as against the insurance company.