UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is arising out of judgment and order dated 21st March, 2009 passed by the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura. The awarded amount of compensation is Rs. 12,45,435/- alongwith interest to be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants.

(2.) On 25th December, 2007 at about 5.00 a.m. the deceased was travelling on Delhi- Mathura National Highway No.2 by his Indica Car while he met with an accident by Tata 709 No. U.P. 86 9598 coming from the opposite direction. Deceased suffered injuries and later on expired. Allegation of rash and negligent driving was made. First Information Report was lodged. Enquiry was made. Site plan was prepared by the police. Charge sheet was filed against the driver. The claimants are wife, son, daughter and mother of the deceased. At the time of death the deceased was 44 years of age. Income Tax return of the deceased was considered by the Tribunal. Multiplier of 15 has been used to come to an appropriate determination of compensation. Though owner of the vehicle of Tata 709 No. U.P. 86 9586 filed his written statement taking the plea that the alleged accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. But inspite of grant of leave to the Insurance Company to contest the proceeding under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the Act), no ground of contributory negligence has been taken in their written statement. No issue has been framed to that extent. Upon going through the site plan prepared by the police it is a clear case of total negligence on the part of the concerned vehicle. So far as the site plan is concerned, as prepared by the police, has its face value for the purpose of satisfaction of the Tribunal in the summary proceeding for the purpose of determination of compensation as held in (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Noor Jahan and others.) First Appeal From Order No. 1788 of 2009 Upon hearing the arguments, as advanced by the appellant Insurance Company herein, it appears to us that part from contributory negligence, a further question has been raised by saying that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, wrong multiplier has been applied and the gross income, as per the income tax return, is taken into account to quantify the quantum. According to us, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation. It has been legislated to give benefit of the victim who suffered injury or the family members of the deceased. The objects and reasons of the Act have prescribed the same. Therefore, when the intention of the Legislature is to give benefit and not to withhold or curtail it unnecessarily, it is duty incumbent upon the law Courts and/or Tribunal to follow the same. Interpretation of law will come forward when the law is not specific or there is a necessity to fulfil the grey area. But, when the law is specific, interpretation of law gets back seat. The M.V. Act, is such Act, specific about determination and payment of compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the greater amount of latitude is to be shown towards payment of compensation to the claimants rather than withholding it taking disadvantageous portions of law. Even if law is not specific but requires interpretation, yet the law Courts and Tribunal should follow the skim of the Act to fulfil grey areas. General principle of law may not overlap special features of law. Surprisingly, in the recent days, we get various unnecessary interpretations of such law by the law Courts treating insurance companies at par with the victim or family members of the deceased. What is the basis of such inference is unknown to us. We have given anxious thought to find out the basis. One basis might be misuse of public money when the other is fraudulent practice by the claimants to obtain the compensation. Therefore, we want to clarify the position in this regard. Money of the Insurance Company cannot be the public money at all. Public money means the amounts which are being collected by the Government by way of Cess, Taxes, Charges, Fees and various methods to accommodate certain amount of revenue from the people for the purpose of utilizing in public purpose. But the money collected by the Insurance Company from an individual by way of premium is business as per contract between them and the owners of the vehicle at their risk and responsibility which cannot be said to be public money at all. They are not doing any charity. Several persons are giving premium to one Insurance Company, which are being collected for the purpose of business out of the same and in the case of accident, one is given benefit. We are not aware about the credit and debit of the insurance companies being earnings by way of premiums and payment by way of compensation as per the respective balance sheets per year but to stop the illogical arguments, Court can call upon the insurance companies to produce their balance sheets of the respective years to know whether the insurance companies faced any loss in their business or not. Nowadays private insurance companies are also allowed to do similar business. Therefore, it is further clear that the income of the Insurance Companies cannot be held to be public money. Insurance is a compulsory document for the purpose of running the vehicle on the road. Whether anyone wants to purchase the vehicle, it is duty of the dealer to get signature on the insurance document of an Insurance Company. Therefore, their earnings are secured. Moreover, if money is collected for the purpose and used for such purpose it cannot be said to be misused at all. These wrong impressions are unfortunately carried by various law Courts nowadays which unnecessarily increasing number of disputes. Irrespective of the face value of the case or merits and demerits, it has become practice to cite such judgments to overrule the settled principle of law. Sometimes Law Courts are taking different views purely on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case, which under no circumstances can be treated to be ratio decidendi. Thus, the first basis of such inference cannot be sustainable at all. So far as the second basis i.e. question of fraud is concerned, we say that unless fraud is established, nobody can say that fraud is committed. Fraud vitiates the entire proceeding. Therefore, if one wants to allege about fraud, he must be sincere about its establishment. Moreover, fraud is a exception but not the general rule of law. The Act itself has made various protections apart from general principles of law. But one has to remember that when the Court proceeds with the beneficial piece of legislation then the Court will have to proceed with such rule of law at first but not with the exceptions, if any, otherwise such actions will be frustrating to the claimants in both ways i.e. by the death or injury and by the trend to refusal to payment of adequate compensation.

(3.) Coming back to the concerned case we find that the multiplier of 15 has been used to come to an appropriate conclusion considering the age of the deceased 44 years. Though Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act speaks about such applicability about the cases under Section 163-A but in determining just compensation under Section 166 of the Act, we cannot ignore such logical basis, i.e. the Second Schedule. It can be principally applied. In (Supe Dei and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2002 (3) TAC 378 (SC)) a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that it is not disputed that though the Second Schedule to the Act in terms does not apply in the case since the claim is not made under Section 163-A of the Act, it serves as a guidelines for the purpose of determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Act.