MANIBAI Vs. MOHD. ISMILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of cross objection preferred by the Respondent No. 2 herein (owner of the offending vehicle). The appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4th Motor Accident Claims' Tribunal, Mhow in Claim Case No. 119/03. As against the claim of Rs. 8,50,000/ - the tribunal awarded Rs. 3,03,000/ - for the death of Dhan Singh in an accident. Cross objection is against the finding of the tribunal that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts in short emerging from the record of the tribunal are that on 19 -5 -2002, deceased was travelling in a loading autoriksha bearing Registration No. MP -09 -K.C./2556. It overturned because of rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 1 as a result deceased met with untimely death. On the fateful day, said vehicle belonged to Respondent No. 2 and was insured with Respondent No. 3. Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence, and after deducting conventional 1/3 amount for the personal expenses of the deceased, assessed the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 16,000/ -. Applying the multiplier of 18, tribunal determined Rs. 2,88,000/ - as the future loss of dependency. Adding another sum of Rs. 5,000/ - for loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/ - towards the loss of love and affection to the children (Appellant Nos. 2 to 5), Tribunal ordered Respondent No. 1 and 2 to pay to the appellants, jointly and severally, an amount of Rs. 3,03,000/ - together with interests thereon @ 9% from the date of application till realisation. Tribunal discharged the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not covered. Hence this appeal not only for enhancement but,also to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company. In the cross -objection, Respondent No. 2 has assailed the finding whereby the Claims Tribunal completely exonerated the Insurance Company from payment of the compensation.

(3.) THE controversy in this appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in absolving the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation jointly or severally along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Secondly, whether Tribunal awarded just and proper amount of compensation. It is indisputable that owner had taken out a statutory riolicy covering the third party risk. In addition, the owner had also paid extra premium of Rs. 15 to cover the risk of driver/workmen. Based on this, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, owner and driver argued that deceased was travelling in the auto -riksha as cleaner/workman, and not as gratuitous passenger, therefore, his risk was covered and Insurance Company is also jointly and severally liable. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that Tribunal rightly held that deceased was a gratuitous passenger and in absence of contract policy, Insurance Company is not liable. He further contended that even if it is assumed that deceased was travelling as cleaner/workman, then also his risk was not covered because premium of Rs. 15/ - was paid to cover the risk of driver only.