NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUDESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 3719 of 2005 and 3720 of 2005 as both the appeals have raised common question of facts and law; and are directed against the same award dated 14.6.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). Both the appeals are result of one accident which occurred on 19.9.2003. The Tribunal has recorded categorical findings based on cogent evidence in para 8 of the award that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-11-3692, which was being driven by one Padam Singh, driver and owner, respondent No. 3. The gross salary of the deceased Bant Singh has been proved to be Rs. 5,750/-. It is also proved that he was working as a Wireman and was posted in C.P.W.D., Chandigarh. The net salary of Rs. 4,468/- has been assessed by rounding off the same to Rs. 4,400/-. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 40 years 5 months. He had left behind his old parents, widow and a minor son. A multiplier of 15, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was applied. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit & another v. Balwant Yadav & others, (1996) 3 SCC 179 (para 6 & 7), the augmented/notional income of the deceased was deemed to be Rs. 6,600/- and deduction of 1/3rd was applied. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 7,92,000/- (4400 x 12 x 15) has been awarded. Further, Rs. 15,000/- to widow for loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- to Shri Kartar Singh & Bhajan Kaur, parents of deceased, as funeral expenses have been awarded. It was further held that the appellant-Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation because it has issued the policy for the period from 19.12.2002 to 18.12.2003. A total sum of Rs. 8,17,000/- was awarded by apportioning the same between widow and minor son on the one hand and the old parents on the other hand, who had filed separate claim petition. The claimantrespondents were also awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing respective claim petitions till realisation.

(2.) However, the main controversy has been raised with regard to cancellation of insurance policy of the ill fated truck on account of bouncing of cheque issued by the owner of the truck. It is admitted position that insurance policy was issued in favour of Padam Singh, who is driver and owner of the ill fated truck, to cover the period from 19.12.2002 to 18.12.2003. It has been found that the cheque, by which the premium was paid, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. A copy of the cover note, a photocopy of the cheque and a copy of the Memo. issued by the bank have been placed on record as Exs. R-1, R-2 and R-3 respectively. It has also been shown that the policy was cancelled and information in that regard was sent to Padam Singh, owner and driver, respondent No. 3 by registered letter and letter to that effect was written to the Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the cancellation of policy on account of bouncing of cheque would result into defeating the rights of third party and on this issue reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur & others, (1998) 1 SCC 371. The view of the Tribunal in this regard reads as under:-

(3.) The aforementioned view has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, (2000) 3 SCC 195. The view of their Lordships' in Inderjit Kaur's case (supra) are discernible from para 9 and 10 of the judgment and the same reads as under:-