KAMLA DEVI Vs. JAI PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a male aged 38 in a motor accident. The Tribunal found that the accident was a result of negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle which was only a chassis. The Tribunal found that he was unauthorized passenger and dismissed the claim for compensation. If he was unauthorised, the liability of the owner of the vehicle to a claim for injury or death of a passenger travelling in the vehicle cannot be excepted. There was no evidence of the owner himself that he had not granted any authority and that he had come into the vehicle without the concurrence of the driver, who was actually driving the vehicle at that time. The compensation ought to have been assessed for the negligence of the driver and the owner must have been made vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver.

(2.) Considering the fact that he was said to be working in agricultural fields and earning Rs. 1,000/- and considering further the fact that he had five dependents, I will take a prospect of increase as still possible for the person and provide for 100% increase on the same in the manner referred to by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Gopali, 2012 168 PunLR 593 and if 1/4th deduction were to be made, I will take the contribution to the family at Rs. 1500/-. I will provide a multiplier of 15 and find the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,70,000/-. I will provide also for the conventional heads of claim, which are loss of consortium, loss of love and affection to the children, funeral expenses and loss to estate, at another sum of Rs. 30,000/- and round off the claim for compensation payable at Rs. 3 lacs. As regards the liability, the insurance company could cover the risk only of what is possible under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and an insurer is not liable to cover the risk for a passenger in a goods vehicle that was still not constructed as a goods vehicle but was still a chassis. The insurance company if at all could have been made liable only on a no fault liability norm as prescribed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme Court in a judgment in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and another v. C.S. Gurushanthappa and another, 2010 160 PunLR 399 has provided that the liability under Section 140 shall be the irreducible minimum which the insurer shall always take responsibility for Section 140 has come through an amendment on 14.11.1994 which enhanced the liability to Rs. 50,000/- from Rs. 25,000/-. This accident has taken place on 14.01.1991 prior to the amendment and therefore, the maximum which was possible under no fault liability was Rs. 25,000/-. The insurance company will cover the risk to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- and the rest of the amount shall be recovered by the claimant against the owner of the vehicle. This entitlement for the claimant shall also be with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. In the manner of apportionment, the amount shall be divided equally amongst all the claimants. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed.