NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of M.A. No. 383 of 1994 filed by the claimants and M.A. No. 449 of 1994 filed by the non-applicant insurance company.

(2.) The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 21.11.1990 at 10.30 a.m. the deceased Bahadursingh, husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3, was going on his scooter No. CIM 269 to Mhow. The non-applicant No. 2, Sukhdevsingh was employee of non-applicant No. 1, the owner of the truck, came near Rajendra Nagar Police Station, Indore, driving truck No. MKM 2070 rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooter of the deceased from back side as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and died. The deceased was aged about 48 years and was Professor, Government Degree College at Mhow. He was getting Rs. 5,705 per month as salary/The claimants lodged a claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for award of Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation. The non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 remained absent and were proceeded ex parte. Appellant-non-applicant No. 3, insurance company, in M.A. No. 449 of 1994 admitted that the truck No. MKM 2070 was insured with it but resisted the claim and pleaded that non-applicant No. 2 had no valid licence. It was also asserted that the deceased was driving the scooter rashly and died of his own negligence. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence of both sides, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. MKM 2070 by respondent No. 2. It held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 5,705 per month and after deducting 1/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased, assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 3,800 per month and by using multiplier of 11 computed the amount of compensation as Rs. 5,01,600 to which Rs. 25,000 were further added for loss of consortium and thus awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,26,600 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Being aggrieved of this award, the claimants have filed M.A. No. 383 of 1994 for enhancement of compensation amount and insurance company has filed M.A. No. 449 of 1994 for setting aside the award.

(3.) Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the non-applicant insurance company, submitted that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by non-applicant No. 2. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. He also submitted that it has not been proved that the non-applicant No. 2 was having valid licence. Therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Mr. Rajpal, learned counsel for the claimants (M.A. No. 383 of 1994), on the other hand, submitted that the non-applicant No. 2 had valid licence. He further submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on lower side. The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that he deceased was going to be promoted to the post of Principal very soon. He, therefore, prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced.