UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SANDHYA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurer of the offending truck no. PB-29-B- 9079 against the impugned judgment and award dtd. 5/12/2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahjahanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 166/2001 (Smt. Sandhya Mishra and others v. Mukhtyar Singh and others), whereby for the untimely death of Sushil Kumar Mishra in a road accident which occurred on 23/4/2001, a compensation of Rs.18,68,852.00 along with interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending truck no. PB-29-B-9079.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company submitted that the deceased- Sushil Kumar Mishra was travelling in a Santro car No. UP-15-L-4798, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident, which collided head on with the truck No. PB- 29-B-9079, but the tribunal has held otherwise. It was submitted that since the accident occurred head on, there was at least 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the above car, which has been ignored by the tribunal. It was further submitted that the deceased was a salaried employee, whose salary was in excess of Rs.2.50 lacs per annum, but no amount of income tax has been deducted from his salary by the tribunal while assessing the compensation, which is erroneous. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that no witness was examined by the owner, insurer and driver of the offending truck, as such, there is no evidence to presume that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car, in which, the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident. It was further submitted that as per the evidence adduced by the claimants before the tribunal, the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the offending truck driver, and after investigation in the criminal case, charge sheet has also been submitted against the offending truck driver, which amply proves the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It was further submitted that since the deceased was about 54 years old at the time of the accident, compensation towards future prospects of the deceased at the rate of 20% of his income was admissible to the claimants under Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, but the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards it. It was further submitted that since there were four dependents of the deceased, only 1/4th amount was required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, but the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount, which is erroneous. It was further submitted that the claimants were also entitled to enhanced compensation under non-pecuniary heads and also enhanced interest at the rate of at least 7% per annum as per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the cross-objection preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation be allowed.