ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. KAMLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appeals arise out of the same accident. Appeals in FAO Nos. 813 and 1523 of 1999 are at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the representatives of the deceased persons and FAO No. 463 of 1999 is at the instance of the insurance company challenging the liability which arises out of an independent claim.

(2.) The factum of accident and the involvement of the insured vehicle are not in dispute. The accident is said to have taken place on 05.11.1996 when one of the claimants before the Tribunal, Danial Joseph was the driver returning from Manali to Ambaia in Tata Sumo DL-8CM-4779 and when it reached village Sarsini Bridge, the insured's truck bearing registration No. HNX-1411 carrying maruti cars dashed against the Tata Sumo vehicle as a result of which, three persons Brij Pal Singh, Yudhister and Ram Niwas Mittal died and yet another passenger also died later at the hospital. The owner and driver remained ex parte. The case was contested only by the insurance company, which denied in general way all the details set out in the petition. Most importantly the fact of a valid insurance was not in dispute.

(3.) FAO No. 463 of 1999, the appeal filed by the insurance company brings out only the aspect that the Tribunal had committed a clerical error in arriving at the compensation by finding the result of Rs. 5,000x12x12 as Rs. 9,60,000/- when the value ought to have been only Rs. 7,20,000/-. The insurance company admittedly did not have the benefit of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, has moved an application before this Court. There is no collusion at the trial although the driver and the owner remained ex parte. If it was merely an issue relating to the clerical mistake in the manner urged by the insurance company, I will allow that to be taken without even taking permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is a cross objection filed by the claimants themselves and therefore, the issue of compensation becomes a ground for adjudication irrespective of the fact whether the insurance company had the benefit of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act or not. The evidence was that the deceased was 45 years of age and he was also an income tax assessed, He was supporting his wife and two minor children. He was running a fertilizer shop and the evidence itself was that they had gone to attend a conference of fertilizers depot owners and the Tribunal, therefore, took against the contention of his earning as Rs. 10,000/- per month that he must have earned about Rs. 7,000/- per month. The income tax return that had been filed as C5 in the year 1996-97 and C6 for the part of the income tax return showed the gross income from the shop as Rs. 51219.76. If there was a document produced to substantiate income, there was hardly a scope for a Tribunal to make its own conjecture about a higher income, which was quite unnecessary. If we take the annual income to be Rs. 50.000/- and provide for 1/3rd deduction and adopt a multiplier of 14 and also add the conventional heads of compensation for loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses, the compensation that shall become payable would seem to be even less than what is determined by the Tribunal. There is no scope for enhancement.