RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. URMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellant. This first appeal from order arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/A.D.J.-6th, Baghpat dated 30.8.2012 by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 11,86,000 with 7% interest from the date of filing of the application as compensation to the dependents of the deceased, who was driving the motor cycle and died on account of the injuries in an accident on 23.6.2010 at about 2.00 p.m. He was hit from the front by a motor vehicle (Eicher) No. HR 67 8842. The deceased was 44 years old at the time of his death and was drawing Rs. 8,600 as salary as security guard serving in Haryana Electricity Distribution Corporation, Faridabad.

(2.) The Tribunal found that the offending vehicle was driving in high speed rashly and negligently and was responsible for causing the accident in which fatal injuries were suffered by the deceased. The vehicle was insured on the date of accident by the appellant Insurance company and was not driven against any of the conditions of insurance policy. On the question of compensation the Tribunal held that Shri Ravindra Kumar, P.W. 3, S.S.P. in the office of the Electricity Department, Haryana had produced the documents relating to the salary of the deceased. He had produced the bills of the contractor, who had engaged the deceased as security man hired by the firm M/s. Sindhu Security Service and Shri Shyam Enterprises. The deceased was getting salary of Rs. 8,600 per month out of which Rs. 1,032 was deducted as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund, Rs. 151 as E.S.I. and Rs. 5 for welfare fund. The compensation was accordingly calculated by deducting 1/4th of the amount, which the deceased would have spent on himself taking into consideration the number of family members and applying multiplier of 15. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10,000 for loss of cohabitation; Rs. 5,000 for loss of love and affection to the family; Rs. 5,000 for loss of estate and Rs. 5,000 for funeral expenses.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that it is admitted that in the present case the motor cycle had collided with the offending motor vehicle from front but in the case of head-on-collision the Tribunal should have considered the question of contributory negligence. He also submits that income of the deceased was not proved for assessing the quantum of compensation.