CHAMPALAL Vs. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M .A. No. 1298/01 has been filed by claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them for death of Bharatlal and M.A. No. 1408/01 has been filed by Insurance Company on the ground that the matador bearing registration No. MP09-S-1662 was being driven by Bharatlal without having endorsement by RTA on his LMV licence and at the time of the accident vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose. Thus, both the appeals have been heard analogously and have been disposed of by this common order. It has not been disputed before us that Bharatlal was aged 28 years and was working as driver, when he had met with a motor road accident on 11.7.1998. The vehicle, at the relevant time, was being driven by Bharatlal himself. On account of his death appellant Champalal and others being parents, young widow and minor daughter filed a claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs. 7,68,000/-. However, the Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence available on record has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,59,000/-. Respondent No. 1 was the Insurance Company of the vehicle on the said date and respondent No. 2 was its owner. These facts have also not been disputed by the parties. Respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumar, who appeared as DW 1 has admitted that deceased Bharatlal was not in the regular employment to drive his matador, but he was called as when his services were required. He further deposed that he used to give Rs. 80/- per day whenever he was called on for duty. From the evidence of Vijay Kumar it is clear that Bharatlal was not in the regular employment of Vijay Kumar, but was a free lancer. Since he was not getting employment every day, the Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 60/- per day i.e., Rs. 1,800/- p.m., in view of the evidence available on record. We find that there is no scope for any interference in this regard. Thus, the dependency of the appellants works out to Rs. 14,400/- per annum. However, looking to the age of the deceased and that of the appellants, proper multiplier should have been 18, whereas the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 10. This was, of course, an apparent error on the part of the Tribunal, which deserves to be rectified. We, therefore, held that proper multiplier in the facts and feature of the case should be 18. Thus, after multiplying Rs.14,400 x 18 the amount of dependency would come to Rs. 2,59,200/-. To this we add a further sum of Rs. 40,800/-, towards various other heads such as loss to the estate, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, etc. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable by the respondents jointly and severally to the appellants would come to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The difference amount would carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application till actually paid. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1298/01 is allowed and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated herein above. Respondents shall bear costs of litigation through out. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-, if certified. Now, coming to M.A. No. 1408/01. It may be mentioned here that on account of the said accident several claim petitions were filed by those who were injured and some by the legal representatives on account of death. All other awards have been satisfied by the Insurance Company without filing any appeal and allowed those awards to attain finality. The Insurance Company has preferred appeal only against this award mainly on the ground that the deceased driver was not holding valid licence. It has already come on record that the deceased was holding a valid licence to drive light motor vehicles. Even if it was not endorsed by the RTO would not materially change or alter the responsibility of the Insurance Company, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Gangadhar v. Oriental Insurance Company, reported in 2000 ACJ 319, which has been followed by this Court in several other cases. In view of this we find that there is no merit and substance in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, which is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy be retained in the connected M.A. No. 1408/2001.