DALJIT KAUR Vs. JAGDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of the petition against respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that the insured was not a party to the proceedings. The petition was filed against the first respondent Jagdev Singh describing him as a driver and the second respondent Amarjit Singh described as care of M/s. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Transport Company Private Limited. The written statement filed by the second respondent was signed and verified by Amarjit Singh describing himself as on behalf of M/s. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Transport Company Private Limited. The Insurance Company filed a written statement contending that it was Amarjit Singh, who was the insured. There was never a plea put forward that the owner of the vehicle had not been impleaded as a party. Strangely that was the contention that appears to have been pressed forth by the insurer at the time of arguments that the owner of the vehicle was not impleaded and that the owner was M/s. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Transport Company Private Limited. The legal character of such a transport company was not clearly evident and if the party had understood at all times that Amarjit Singh was representing M/s. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Transport Company Private Limited and the Insurance Company itself filed a statement contending that Amarjit Singh was the insured, the Tribunal ought to have found that there was no case in defence to disentitle the claimants from securing an award against the insured and the insurer. The defence was deliberately vague and intended to deflect the course of justice. I find the conduct of the insurer to be highly objectionable that it could have urged a point which was not specifically pleaded in defence. Parties in accident claims are guided by the advice of counsel. If Amarjit Singh was stated to be the insured by the Insurance Company itself and Amarjit Singh had also verified the statement as representative of M/s. New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Transport Company Private Limited, the Tribunal ought to have noticed that there was no contusion at the trial about who the owner was. If the registered owner was Amarjit Singh, no matter in what capacity either in his own name or as representing a Sirhind Transport Company, it was enough for fastening the liability on the insurer. The compensation assessed and a liability cast only on the driver of the vehicle was grossly improper and betrays a wrong judicial approach by the Tribunal Judge.

(2.) THE deceased was 24 years of age and a beldar in Zila Parishad. He was said to be earning Rs. 3,627/ - and there was evidence that he also had 4/5 buffaloes and earning about Rs. 3,000/ - per month. The Tribunal looked for a documentary evidence for possession of buffaloes. I will discard such an effort, make a provision for 50% increase of his salary and will also assume that he would have augmented his income through sale of milk. 1 would take the total with provision for increase as Rs. 6,440/ -, make a 50% deduction and take the contribution to the family at Rs. 3,220/ -. I apply a multiplier of 18 as held by the Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shall and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, : 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 343 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 427 : 2012 ACJ 2002 and as laid down in M. Mansoor v. United India Insurance Company Limited, : 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 729 : 2013 (5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 516 : 2013(12) SCALE 324 where the court has preferred the choice of multiplier for a bachelor to be determent on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the claimant. The loss of dependence will come to Rs. 6,95,520/ -. I will add towards medical expenses Rs. 20,000/ - for the treatment expenses that were shown to have been incurred from the date of accident on 26.07.1998 to 02.08.1998 when he ultimately succumbed to the injuries. I will make also a provision for conventional heads of claim i.e. loss to estate at Rs. 2,500/ - and Rs. 5,000/ - towards funeral expenses and take the total compensation to be Rs. 7,23,020/ -. The amount over what was assessed already and the entire compensation shall be recoverable against the Insurance Company with interest at 9% from the date of petition till date of payment. The entitlement shall be between the mother and the unmarried sister in the ratio of 3:1. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.