(1.) APPELLANT insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved of the award dated 23. 3. 1992, passed in M. V. C. No. 175 of 1989 by IXth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. The claimants have filed cross-appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by the aforesaid award. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE deceased Laxmi Narayan, aged 35 years, met with an accident caused by mini bus No. MKJ 1555 owned by Amolak Singh, driven by Harpeet Singh and insured by the appellant insurance company. At the relevant time on 18. 2. 1986 the cyclist Laxmi Narayan was going on his left side of the road at Kanchghar Chowraha near Railway Station, Jabalpur, who was dashed by the mini bus, as a result of which the deceased received multiple injuries and died instantaneously. The legal representatives of the deceased filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of Rs. 2,99,400/ -. On the evidence adduced by the parties the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the mini bus driver. The deceased at the relevant time was earning Rs. 786/- per month as a labourer in M. E. S. He was in a settled job and there were prospects of his promotion. However, on the basis of the monthly earning of the deceased the Tribunal had determined the dependency at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 23 into the multiplicand of Rs. 4,800/- assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,10,400/- wherein a deduction of 20 per cent was given towards the lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. Thus, an award of Rs. 90,000/- against the respondents with a direction to pay the said amount jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation was passed. The plea of insurance company that its liability was limited to the extent of maximum of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was negatived as the policy did not specify the said liability.
(3.) AGGRIEVED of the said award the appellant insurance company has filed the appeal contending therein that even if the defence that the driver was not holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle is not accepted, liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only in view of Section 95 (2) (b) (i) which is candid clear from the policy. Supporting the contention learned Counsel for the appellant company relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Bai 1995 ACJ 470 (SC) and Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vimla Gangotia v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1995 ACJ 53 (MP ). Mr. M. Hafizullah, learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), while considering the dependency as the deceased was in a settled job under defence the future prospects of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration, i. e. , minimum earning ought to have been considered as Rs. 1,200/- deducting therefrom one-third for the personal living expenses of the deceased, the dependency ought to have been assessed as Rs. 800/- per month and applying the multiplier of 15 the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,44,000/- besides an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the head of consortium. The Tribunal also committed an error in deducting 20 per cent on account of lump sum payment while it is settled that when multiplier method is applied it takes care of all that and no deduction can be made either for lump sum payment or for uncertainties of life, a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Fizabai v. Nemichand 1994 ACJ 249 (MP), was cited. It was further contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation as awarded by the Supreme Court in cases referred by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prakramchand v. Chuttan 1991 ACJ 1051 (MP) and in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra ). As regards the appeal by insurance company the learned Counsel supported the award and contended that the insurance company did not prove the policy, hence, the liability was unlimited.